Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 13 Feb '17 23:56
    Is there a difference in scoring if you resign vs out right Loss by checkmate
  2. 14 Feb '17 00:00
    A loss is a loss.
  3. Standard member Illuminati
    Expert / NM
    14 Feb '17 13:20
    Yes, the winner gets more Master Class rating points if they win via checkmate. Didn't you see Searching for Bobby Fischer?
  4. 14 Feb '17 14:09
    No difference in points or grading.

    When I look for Hall of Doom Candidates I always look for checkmates first.
    If you have blundered and do not want to become notorious then resign. (but I'll still find it someday!)

    No difference in points of grading.
  5. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Feb '17 19:44
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    No difference in points or grading.

    When I look for Hall of Doom Candidates I always look for checkmates first.
    If you have blundered and do not want to become notorious then resign. (but I'll still find it someday!)

    No difference in points of grading.
    Maybe FIDE should make a new rule: Both players over 2700, you checkmate your opponent, you get TWO points instead of one for the win, since checkmate at that level happens so rarely.
  6. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    15 Feb '17 00:00
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Maybe FIDE should make a new rule: Both players over 2700, you checkmate your opponent, you get TWO points instead of one for the win, since checkmate at that level happens so rarely.
    I'm not sure I understand this. I can't think of a good reason why a player would willingly allow his/her opponent to get two points by playing it out to mate (except to skew the score to keep a third party from winning a prize, or something like that-like Kramnik or Topolov doing it out of spite just to keep the other guy from winning something). They would surely just resign and retire to the pub.

    In a normal time control, it would take a blunder for a player to allow a mate, and I am not a big fan of awarding a player an extra point because his opponent blundered. What am I missing?
  7. 15 Feb '17 01:22 / 1 edit
    Might be a reason not to play into and agree to a draw.

    But 2 points just to win.

    4 draws equal one win.
  8. Standard member Nowakowski
    10. O-O
    15 Feb '17 02:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    I'm not sure I understand this. I can't think of a good reason why a player would willingly allow his/her opponent to get two points by playing it out to mate (except to skew the score to keep a third party from winning a prize, or something like that-like Kramnik or Topolov doing it out of spite just to keep the other guy from winning something). The ...[text shortened]... big fan of awarding a player an extra point because his opponent blundered. What am I missing?
    That type of rule would certainly damage the few glorious beauties we get every now and then. Take
    Boris Spassky vs. Joop Van Oosterom Antwerp 1955

    Some brilliancies deserve to shine to their end. This miniature seems so quiet, but Spassky's 17. Nf5! Is among my favorite moves in chess.


    Spassky gives us a simple mate in a bold and yet delicate thrust. Joop in all his brilliant slow positional python style - is caught with his coils round a blade - and obliges Spassky's finish.

    -GIN
  9. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    15 Feb '17 14:51
    A classic "Benoni Jump"- very nice!