For a long time, I was pushing one pawn while putting him in check every other move. Finally, the only way I could avoid him succeeding in his endeavour to triplicate a position was to promote a pawn. This, however, lead to inevitable stalemate. In retrospect, I should have just promoted a different pawn.
Chess has been labelled as many things throughout the century: Botvinnik thought of it as a "science", Fischer categorized it as "life", but I must agree with Alekhine when he said that "Chess is art". Though many people are indifferent to such a statement and would rather go on shuffling pieces in a mindless ego game, these automatons are oblivious to the reason why Chess, like music, has the ability to make men happy. In a position where you are down a great deal of material, you have the option of doing two different things: one, playing on in the not-so-realistic hope that your opponent will fumble, or two, resign and bid the player a good game. The former is common among amateurs, being that losing is such an unpleasant shock to their glass-like egos. I have no problem with such players; breaking glass has always been a favourite past-time of mine. But if one is to consider chess an artform, then the former is called for. In art, as in life, there is a call for aesthetics. Life can only be justified as an aesthetic phenomena, and the same can be said for chess. If you are not producing beauty, then go wash dishes or listen to rambling girlfriend. This player that refuses to resign has every right not to; which is to say, he has that justification because he does not appreciate the game as art but only wishes to wallow in the swamp of the super-ego. I would suggest to the player who posted this letter, take pleasure in crushing this opponent, make sure that your win will be one of aesthetics instead of frustration. And, if at all possible, try and do it in such a way that he will quit the game of chess and perhaps, hopefully, take up checkers instead.
Originally posted by quijoticNOW THAT IS THE GREATEST COMMENT EVER WRITTEN ON AN ONLINE CHESS MESSAGE BOARD!!! 😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲
Chess has been labelled as many things throughout the century: Botvinnik thought of it as a "science", Fischer categorized it as "life", but I must agree with Alekhine when he said that "Chess is art". Though many people are indiffer ...[text shortened]... e game of chess and perhaps, hopefully, take up checkers instead.
Originally posted by quijoticTo all of those who insisted that you should resign as soon as you are even a minor piece down, especially to the person behind quijotic (who, having made 1 post and no moves, I think it is fair to assume was created by a coward who was too scared to post under his real name) I'd like to show you:
Chess has been labelled as many things throughout the century: Botvinnik thought of it as a "science", Fischer categorized it as "life", but I must agree with Alekhine when he said that "Chess is art". Though many people are indiffer ...[text shortened]... e game of chess and perhaps, hopefully, take up checkers instead.
www.redhotpawn.com/core/viewhistory.php?gameid=168522
I threw away my queen at about move 10, and could only get a bishop in return. I persisted. I am now 2 moves from mate, despite the fact that my opponent (who I in no way mean to disrespect in this post) has still got the material advantage.
If your idea of a beautiful game of chess is to give up at the first sign of trouble and difficulty, and that's how you plan to live your life too, the fine. You're not going to get very far. Me? I'll fight on until it is truely hopeless. Then I'll shake hands, get back up, and start again.
Originally posted by cum tokernot exactly the point I was trying to make either. Resigning when there is no hope is no bad thing, and many playes here will know it's a sure thing long before I do, but quitting because it's become a bit difficult isn't what I'd call a "beautifully artistic" thing.
Exactly, don't give up until you have been checkmated.
Originally posted by belgianfreakif you're playing a great player- after losing your queen there is not much to hope for in the way of your opponent making a mistake- so admitting defeat is not as you said a bad thing
not exactly the point I was trying to make either. Resigning when there is no hope is no bad thing, and many playes here will know it's a sure thing long before I do, but quitting because it's become a bit difficult isn't what I'd call a "beautifully artistic" thing.
Originally posted by ArtisanHaxanThey probably do it to annoy you and good on them.😀
People when the game is obviously over, why drag it out for a couple of weeks. I am currently involved in a game in which this person gave away all his material in a matter of 20 minutes through constant email notices. My opponent has a completely lost position and me being 4 pieces up with a mating net in place it makes little sense to play out a com ...[text shortened]... and just resign instead of giving everything away then making him wait for weeks to get the win.
Playing for a draw is absolutly ok.
But when you have left only one king and one blocked pawn against your opponent's rook, bishop, knight and 3 pawns, then it would really be time to resign. It's simply a matter of respect! I'm playing such a game right now. And I don't think that my opponent (nearly 1500 rating-points) is really thinking that he can draw the game.
But you can't force anybody to be respectful ... so we'll play until mate.
1) Emmanual Lasker, world chess champion for 28 years, certainly thought quite highly of checkers.
2) Robert J Fischer, arguably the greatest chess player of all time, once continued play with nothing but a King; so I guess the greatest player in the world's advice is "make the other guy prove he can beat you." Of course he thought chess was life, and disdained those who thought of it as art as nothing but effete intellectuals.
3) Arguments against playing on in a lost position are more cogent in OTB chess, where having to stick to a board prevents you from wandering off for another game, a beer, lunch, kibbitzing. At an internet chess site, run in the style of correspondence chess, where one loses at most a few minutes, and even this little time being spread out over weeks, these arguments seem more like mere whining; with a click of a button, one is on to the next, more interesting game, with so little lost or invested in the "easy win".
If your going to win, win. If you are going to whine, whine. And if it takes you 60 more moves to turn a queen advantage into a mate, then you aren't really as good as you think.
Oh, hi guys. Just passing through on by way to the NCBI website....
Originally posted by SchindlerI personally enjoy playing a game all the way to the end no matter what the outcome. I never thought of it as being disrespectful to continue even though I knew I would lose. Some of my opponents have indicated they would prefer checkmating me as opposed to me resigning. I have resigned many times and usually ask my opponent their preference.
Playing for a draw is absolutly ok.
But when you have left only one king and one blocked pawn against your opponent's rook, bishop, knight and 3 pawns, then it would really be time to resign. It's simply a matter of respect! I'm playing such a game right now. And I don't think that my opponent (nearly 1500 rating-points) is really thinking that he c ...[text shortened]... n draw the game.
But you can't force anybody to be respectful ... so we'll play until mate.
I simply enjoy playing chess and want to see how the checkmate will be accomplished. It helps me understand the game better. I hope for a draw, but have gotten very few of them. It’s a matter of not wanting to give up.
I understand how some would feel it wrong for someone to continue a losing battle, but when I have played OTB games, resigning was never an option. You were expected to finish. In the future though, I’ll give my opponent the choice when I feel there is no hope for me. If I am definitely going to win, my opponent can decide what they what to do. Either way won’t bother me.
Thanks,
Doug