28 Feb 06
Originally posted by Dr Strangeloveyes....but if there are many players out there that have a strong desire to be "polite" and "courteous" to fellow players then it is a good idea to get a general consensus over the issue isn't it??
The act of resigning is completely up to the individual and this discussion should not even be taking place.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by Shinidoki"Make" you play on? What kind of nonsense is that? You started the game, so finish it! It matters not if the opponent resigns or lets you play the mating move. Either way, it's just as won.
Game 1839071 here - my openant decided to resign not when his king was in the centre attacked from all sides, no, he resigns 1 move from mate....
now, was that the "polite" thing to do? make me play on only to deprive me of mate??
There's nothing wrong with being polite to the opponent after the game. But a competitive player isn't going to waste time during the game worrying about politeness...
28 Feb 06
[Event "Tourn. n500"]
[Site "www.chess-mail.com"]
[Date "2005.12.05"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Gustav"]
[Black "Rathish"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1499"]
[BlackElo "1499"]
[ECO ""]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Bf5 4. Bxc4 Nf6 5. Qb3 e6 6. Qxb7 Be4 7. d5 exd5
8. Bb5+ Nbd7 9. f3 Rb8 10. Bxd7+ Nxd7 11. Qxa7 Bxb1 12. Rxb1 Bb4+ 13. Kf2
O-O 14. Qd4 Nf6 15. Ne2 c5 16. Qd1 Qc7 17. Ng3 d4 18. Rf1 dxe3+ 19. Bxe3
Rbd8 20. Qc2 Rfe8 21. a3 Qe5 22. Qc1 Nd5 23. Bxc5 Bxc5+ 24. Qxc5 Rc8 25.
Qa7 Rc7 26. Qe3 Qxe3#
0-1
28 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by pointLast month in our club championship I lost a game that would fit into the category you describe, but I completely switched off mentally thinking it was all over, moved the wrong passed pawn and lost the game!
Some people are jerks who just want to make you work for the win. Some just play on in the hopes of getting a stalemate, and I'm sure some people are both. Look at it as practice.
Just don't get careless and stalemate them, it only encourages them.
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54019
02 Mar 06
in one of my rhp games, my opponent played a very clever and very long semi-forced continuation which led to a fatal fork at the end. i played on to so that my opponent could execute the conclusion to his beautiful strategy/idea. so in this case, playing on to the end was done in respect.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by tonytiger41Well, in the case of allowing your opponent the pleasure of executing a beautiful combination, I suppose that is acceptable.
in one of my rhp games, my opponent played a very clever and very long semi-forced continuation which led to a fatal fork at the end. i played on to so that my opponent could execute the conclusion to his beautiful strategy/idea. so in this case, playing on to the end was done in respect.
However, I thoroughly disagree with the notion that one should play on in a game a rook down with no compensation. I really disagree with people who say you have nothing to lose and can use the practice. That is false!
Chess is a very different game when you have comparable positional equality to your opponent than when you are down large amounts of material. When you are losing a match, your moves become more about traps and tricks than actually playing good moves! Playing lost positions in fact makes one worse at playing standard even or winning positions. This is why it benefits the 'loser' to resign. Why practice a game where all you can do is pray your opponent makes a mistake? You should instead resign and focus that energy on analyzing the mistake(s) you made in the first place and start a new game practicing from a good solid position.
05 Mar 06
The general drift I'm getting is that the weaker the player, the more likely they are to play on. With justification....they make more mistakes than good players, and wild swings are more likely to happen. I've had opponents play on when down a lot of plastic, and yes, it's annoying, but that's the time to be extra careful to pick strong moves and put them out of their misery as quickly as possible.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by GambitzoidSurprise, surprise... Gimpbitzoid posts more crap.
Well, in the case of allowing your opponent the pleasure of executing a beautiful combination, I suppose that is acceptable.
However, I thoroughly disagree with the notion that one should play on in a game a rook down with no compensation. I really disagree with people who say you have nothing to lose and can use the practice. That is false!
Chess i ...[text shortened]... ake(s) you made in the first place and start a new game practicing from a good solid position.
Game 1428837
I don't see anything wrong with launching an all out attack on my opponent after blundering my queen away. If he can't deal with the onslaught and loses, then I deserve the game plain and simple. I wasn't praying for a blunder, but I was hoping to pressure my opponent into one.
D
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by RagnorakOf course you should have played on...look at the guy's rating. If he were a 1000 pts. higher, what would you have done?
Surprise, surprise... Gimpbitzoid posts more crap.
Game 1428837
I don't see anything wrong with launching an all out attack on my opponent after blundering my queen away. If he can't deal with the onslaught and loses, then I deserve the game plain and simple. I wasn't praying for a blunder, but I was hoping to pressure my opponent into one.
D
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by Ragnorakwell done, good escape, he must have been kicking himself, as you would have been a very nice 'scalp' for a 1200 player to get (I was once a scalp myself for an 1100 player...although I think there was something funny going on...but that's another story).
Surprise, surprise... Gimpbitzoid posts more crap.
Game 1428837
I don't see anything wrong with launching an all out attack on my opponent after blundering my queen away. If he can't deal with the onslaught and loses, then I deserve the game plain and simple. I wasn't praying for a blunder, but I was hoping to pressure my opponent into one.
D
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by tonytiger41While that is very kind of you, I thnk tha "saw it, went home" club is just fine. You are acknoldging the creat tactic by resigning.
in one of my rhp games, my opponent played a very clever and very long semi-forced continuation which led to a fatal fork at the end. i played on to so that my opponent could execute the conclusion to his beautiful strategy/idea. so in this case, playing on to the end was done in respect.
06 Mar 06
Originally posted by RagnorakThat game is a terrible example, I don't think you are wrong to play on in that game. You are only down 4 points of material and his King is terribly exposed and you have compensation in your activated rooks and the fact that his rook is out of play. The title of this thread is 'playing on in HOPELESS situations' and I would hardly call that situation hopeless. And no, the starting position of the game is not hopeless, far from it, there are some GMs who would argue that if anything Black actually has an advantage! So, to sum up, no it's not crap, it's very reasonable to say that if someone is down a rook to a queen with only a handful of pawns left on the board then they should resign, but not in the case of a game like the one you posted where the loss in material is compensated by activity and plenty of pieces.
Surprise, surprise... Gimpbitzoid posts more crap.
Game 1428837
I don't see anything wrong with launching an all out attack on my opponent after blundering my queen away. If he can't deal with the onslaught and loses, then I deserve the game plain and simple. I wasn't praying for a blunder, but I was hoping to pressure my opponent into one.
D
p.s. So stop twisting my words out of context and you'll find that you might understand my point, or even (God forbid!) agree with me.