@rytsar25507 clearly the OP had no issues with time wasting as he wasted more time then anyone in that game.
If you have just a king, the idea is to make the best move possible in the hope of securing stalemate. I've done it when down over 20 points and just a king. It's about sportsmanship.
@rystar25507 if someo8si
Its not "rystar", its "rytsar" -_-
rytsar means knight in russian.
oh wait, so this is why @thecalculatorkid is so adamant about not resigning
makes sense, but im guessing thats because your opponent was really stupid, or was trolling you. im guessing the latter.
EDIT: check his most recent forum - I cannot post images or links.
But don't you see, the OP did exactly the same thing. He didn't pursue checkmate. He made very silly moves.
@rystar25507 if someo8si
Its not "rystar", its "rytsar" -_-
rytsar means knight in russian.
It was a typo. Post edited now.
@rytsar25507 clearly the OP had no issues with time wasting as he wasted more time then anyone in that game.
If you have just a king, the idea is to make the best move possible in the hope of securing stalemate. I've done it when down over 20 points and just a king. It's about sportsmanship.
the OP clearly stated that he understood his mistake and would not do it again. this is not about the OP's post anymore - rather the general principle of resigning or playing on in a dead lost position.
"sportsmanship"?? its good sportsmanship to play on a position with only K vs K + Q. okay, sure. whatever floats your boat. my point is that its disrespectful of your opponent and their time as well (unless youre u1000).
oh wait, so this is why @thecalculatorkid is so adamant about not resigning
makes sense, but im guessing thats because your opponent was really stupid, or was trolling you. im guessing the latter.
EDIT: check his most recent forum - I cannot post images or links.
But don't you see, the OP did exactly the same thing. He didn't pursue checkmate. He made very silly moves.
iirc the OP won the game?
see game: nickhanne vs cardsgreen in the OP's archive.
its also not even fun to just move your king around, and neither is it instructive. at your level, my level, SNUDOO's level, the point of playing is mostly to have fun and improve - there is no instructive value in moving your king back and forth for a bunch of moves waiting to get mated. if there is some counterplay, of course it makes sense to play on...
also, theres this point you havent addressed. oh well, ive made my point - no sense arguing with you on the ethics of resigning when i can clearly use this time to improve my chess knowledge. (just as you can use the time you waste playing dead lost positions to improve your knowledge as well, but thats not my problem, since youre adamant about it)
I feel it's more like disrespect. Today on [redacted website] I played a 3 min blitz against a 1950. He lost a piece in the opening, but had a small chance against my king.
Ok, you didn't resign, I can respect that.
But then the queens went off and he lost another minor piece. Now I'm getting annoyed, I have more pawns, more pieces, more everything and he's still making moves.
I sac'd a piece to take the rest of his pawns off the board. Now, I have a rook, two knights, six pawns (around that number), and he has.... a rook and a knight. And I am a whole minute up.
By now I'm feeling offended and annoyed, because I don't know what this guy's thinking. I was sorely tempted to promote all my pawns into knights and check him all around but he resigned before I could promote, which left me with conflicted emotions.
What? You feel offended? Offended that an opponent is trying to beat you?
Why do you sign up to the game in the first place? Is it not to achieve checkmate? Is it not to have an attempt at beating your opponent at their best?
Put it this way, if your opponent is making the best moves they can, and you start making moves you know are not the best available, the only person lacking sportsmanship is you.
Look, what my view on this subject is that I take a slight offense when my opponent keeps playing on when loads of material down.
I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm expressing my views. Some people want to play the best moves, fine. But others feel like it's a waste of time.
There's more than one side to this argument.
My view is when someone's clearly lost, then it feels less like chess and more like "ugh".
I know I'd rather not play a game a queen down with no hope. would you?
...
That's how the game is played. If your opponent is down on material, guess what, you've played a good game, so convert the position into checkmate because, guess what, that's the point of the game.
...
You are completely and utterly in the wrong here.
The point of my feeling offended is that my opponent doesn't trust me to convert the position into mate. At a certain level there are certain expectations; I'm quite sure most people above 1500 can convert an entire piece (no pawn comp, just a piece in a clear position). When they play on, you can view it one of two ways:
They want to give you the feeling of checkmate (@Thecalculatorkid)
They don't trust you to convert (That's my view)
the fact that you say "you're completely in the wrong" is quite unreasonable; I never said that "everyone who plays on is a complete a-hole". I simply stated my views, and you didn't like it so it's "wrong" now.
wait am i missing something, or did someone get muted? also: unfollowed.
@TheCalculatorKid I just remembered a quote from Eric Hansen in one of his speedrun videos...
"I'm here to have a good time, not a long time".
You’ve all been spanked by a kid, and He’s right.
Child prodigies...
a good time could be a long time.
cats play with their prey often, putting the boot in for as long as they like.
a good time could be a long time.
cats play with their prey often, putting the boot in for as long as they like.
you like to grind 50 moves a piece down?
yes, but you can only be the guy with all the pieces or the guy with only a king.
I have mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, with all the clutter on the board, stalemate is a real possibility, especially if my opponent becomes frustrated because I won't resign. On the other hand, I don't like to continue playing hopeless positions in the hope that my opponent will make a major mistake (it happens occassionally, but not enough to justify playing on).
Note: There's a recent book, "The Complete Chess Swindler," which discusses this topic. In a hopeless situation, you take advantage of your opponent by exploiting weaknesses. In this case, a cluttered position and a frustrated opponent.
oh wait, so this is why @thecalculatorkid is so adamant about not resigning
makes sense, but im guessing thats because your opponent was really stupid, or was trolling you. im guessing the latter.
EDIT: check his most recent forum - I cannot post images or links.