this thread is heading toward stalemate
Isn't rude to prolong a game when checkmate is inevitable?
Sort:
orangehonda wrote:
Well frankly I don't believe you lol this 1800 player you mean you saw him do it in some blitz games or he does it in all OTB tournament games?
OK, I admit I don't actually know him in real life. I played 2 games with him on chess.com and when looking through his turn-based games noticed that he never resigns.
He does it vs people rated 500 points lower than him but not vs an equal?
No, vs all players.
etc? I don't believe he just does it all the time because that's what he does... there's no way to not realize that's rude to an evenly matched player. It's too obviously rude for someone to just operate that way obliviously. Even though it doesn't matter if I believe it or not...
So, you think he's intentionally trying to be rude to everyone? Even to people like me who were having a nice chat with him? 
I don't think you can just assume that. Some people just behave illogically.
I know a few players who operate that way too, they're the same ones that have trouble remembering what en passant is and how to castle queen side.
It said he was 1800 FIDE on his profile. I guess he could have been lying. He was around 2300 on chess.com.
4 pages... these topics are awful.
I can send you a link orangehonda if you don't believe me?
EDIT: Actually it seems he is resigning a few games now and has taken off the FIDE rating for some reason. I hadn't viewed his profile for months.
kbalaiah wrote:
OhJaime wrote:
I was just playing Live Chess. I was losing pretty bad but, I'm a beginner so I decided to play the game to the end instead of resigning to learn tricks in the end game. I was down to only my king; my opponent still had a queen, 2 rooks and a few pawns. My opponent then began to try to promote his/her pawns while I could only make a handful of legal moves. He/she promoted one pawn to a bishop. After that I resigned. Was my opponent's behavior strange or just plain rude?
You shouldnot have resigned my dear.I used to tell my students not to giveup till the mate. Because there is allways a possiblity for stalemate,when the opponent is having more materials. if you have the scoresheet with you analyse it with Chess.com or with your friends or coach.Donot repeat it [ ie. resigning before mate]
wishes
Thirukkalathy.K.
While this might be ok advice for beginners as they progress in chess they will soon realize that its best to resign COMPLETELY HOPELESS POSITIONS.
I would also like to point out that not resigning such positions in otb games is FAR more annoying than doing this online. Why ? Well, there is often not much time between rounds in most tournaments so every minute that the players have to rest/eat/recover from the previous round is precious to ALL players.
doodinthemood wrote:
WTF? It's a game of chess. You don't control your opponent, they can do what they want. If they're playing moves and you aren't enjoying it, then resign. If they're playing moves that you aren't enjoying, and you think you are winning, then win already, or maybe chess isn't for you.
That makes sense!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okolo wrote:
grivei wrote:
I was 7 and playing in a tourney. A full rook up, but my opponent didn't want to resign. The whole tourney was in stand-by, waiting for our game to finish. At one moment, one of the trainers who were watching addressed to the coach of my opponent loudly: "why the hell did you bring here someone who doesn't know that a full rook down with no compensation is game over??". Some people in the audience began to laugh: "he thought that he was only a pawn down". My opponent resigned. He was 6.
Who was being rude in this case? Chess players can be really pathetic over this game. Time was put on the clock. Everyone should at least be willing to give the players the allotted time to finish the game. No matter what the position. This kind of behavior is what I despise about chess players who think they're so superior that everyone should KNOW what they know. They make the game all the more difficult to learn.
I agree.
Reb wrote:
kbalaiah wrote:
OhJaime wrote:
I was just playing Live Chess. I was losing pretty bad but, I'm a beginner so I decided to play the game to the end instead of resigning to learn tricks in the end game. I was down to only my king; my opponent still had a queen, 2 rooks and a few pawns. My opponent then began to try to promote his/her pawns while I could only make a handful of legal moves. He/she promoted one pawn to a bishop. After that I resigned. Was my opponent's behavior strange or just plain rude?
You shouldnot have resigned my dear.I used to tell my students not to giveup till the mate. Because there is allways a possiblity for stalemate,when the opponent is having more materials. if you have the scoresheet with you analyse it with Chess.com or with your friends or coach.Donot repeat it [ ie. resigning before mate]
wishes
Thirukkalathy.K.
While this might be ok advice for beginners as they progress in chess they will soon realize that its best to resign COMPLETELY HOPELESS POSITIONS.
I would also like to point out that not resigning such positions in otb games is FAR more annoying than doing this online. Why ? Well, there is often not much time between rounds in most tournaments so every minute that the players have to rest/eat/recover from the previous round is precious to ALL players.
I think that is a matter of common sense, but isn't this beginners we're talking about here, and not pros playing in a tournament?
Well, the OP's question : Is it rude to prolong a game when checkmate is inevitable ? The answer is that some players consider it rude, yes and some don't. Each one of us decides what we consider to be "rude". Its not only pros that play in tournaments and except for the elite closed tournaments, most tournaments have many more amateur players in them than pros.
grivei wrote:
milsrilion wrote:
Didn't a great man once say that no game was won by resignation? If you have time on your clock, it's your right to play on until checkmate (or stalemate if you get lucky).
Sure. But it's the right of your opponent to laugh at you and it's the right of the other players in the tourney to gather around your table and comment loudly "what an idiot" and it's the right of the tourney organizers to never invite you again. I guess it's your right to be treated like a jerk :)
I might suddenly consider it my right to shove their teeth down their throat for calling me an idiot.
I wonder if this is about someone not being as confident of a win as they should be. Perhaps they have a won game with careful play but it could be a drawn game with imprecise play. IMO that is why someone continues on in a position that looks lost. They could come out with a draw if their opponent gets careless or impatient.
AnthonyCG wrote:
If it's like K+Q vs. K I just end it. Otherwise...
You gotta admit, that black king seemed to be enjoying that.
brianb42 wrote:
I wonder if this is about someone not being as confident of a win as they should be. Perhaps they have a won game with careful play but it could be a drawn game with imprecise play. IMO that is why someone continues on in a position that looks lost. They could come out with a draw if their opponent gets careless or impatient.
I specified COMPLETELY HOPELESS POSITION when I post on this topic. When one player has a chess set left ( or just a lone Queen and king ) and all the other player has is a king running around that is COMPLETELY HOPELESS.
Apr 4, 2010
0
#95
Reb wrote:
brianb42 wrote:
I wonder if this is about someone not being as confident of a win as they should be. Perhaps they have a won game with careful play but it could be a drawn game with imprecise play. IMO that is why someone continues on in a position that looks lost. They could come out with a draw if their opponent gets careless or impatient.
I specified COMPLETELY HOPELESS POSITION when I post on this topic. When one player has a chess set left ( or just a lone Queen and king ) and all the other player has is a king running around that is COMPLETELY HOPELESS.
The skill level of the players does matter. A lone king defending against a rook and king is mate in sixteen from then worst position, but beginning chess players tell me every few months it is a draw. With a queen instead of rook, the game ends in a draw due to stalemate, fifty move rule, or repetition at least once in nearly every youth tournament I've attended. It is checkmate in ten from the worst position.
Ziryab wrote:
Reb wrote:
brianb42 wrote:
I wonder if this is about someone not being as confident of a win as they should be. Perhaps they have a won game with careful play but it could be a drawn game with imprecise play. IMO that is why someone continues on in a position that looks lost. They could come out with a draw if their opponent gets careless or impatient.
I specified COMPLETELY HOPELESS POSITION when I post on this topic. When one player has a chess set left ( or just a lone Queen and king ) and all the other player has is a king running around that is COMPLETELY HOPELESS.
The skill level of the players does matter. A lone king defending against a rook and king is mate in sixteen from then worst position, but beginning chess players tell me every few months it is a draw. With a queen instead of rook, the game ends in a draw due to stalemate, fifty move rule, or repetition at least once in nearly every youth tournament I've attended. It is checkmate in ten from the worst position.
Yes, I specified earlier that there are some "exceptions" . Where really weak/beginners are involved is one of them. Also, time on the clock might justify not resigning as well.
You are an A class player otb and I doubt you play on in rook down positions against similarly rated and higher rated players. I certainly don't.
Apr 4, 2010
0
#97
Reb wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Reb wrote:
brianb42 wrote:
I wonder if this is about someone not being as confident of a win as they should be. Perhaps they have a won game with careful play but it could be a drawn game with imprecise play. IMO that is why someone continues on in a position that looks lost. They could come out with a draw if their opponent gets careless or impatient.
I specified COMPLETELY HOPELESS POSITION when I post on this topic. When one player has a chess set left ( or just a lone Queen and king ) and all the other player has is a king running around that is COMPLETELY HOPELESS.
The skill level of the players does matter. A lone king defending against a rook and king is mate in sixteen from then worst position, but beginning chess players tell me every few months it is a draw. With a queen instead of rook, the game ends in a draw due to stalemate, fifty move rule, or repetition at least once in nearly every youth tournament I've attended. It is checkmate in ten from the worst position.
Yes, I specified earlier that there are some "exceptions" . Where really weak/beginners are involved is one of them. Also, time on the clock might justify not resigning as well.
You are an A class player otb and I doubt you play on in rook down positions against similarly rated and higher rated players. I certainly don't.
Only rarely will I play on in a hopeless position. I did so on this site a few months ago even though mate was inevitable, and I suspected my opponent of cheating (he was banned before the game concluded).
I played after all reasonable hope Thursday night because I had two tricks--an easy to prevent checkmate threat and a stalemate trap. My opponent's rating is provisional, so I tested him more than usual. I wasn't a rook down, though, but three pawns (sometimes that is more than a rook). About five years ago, I played in a hopeless position because I was angry that I let my queen get trapped. This latter instance also was a Thursday night game at my club; there was no rush to lunch/rest as there would be on a Saturday. I should also so that when I play in a hopeless position, I play very fast.
So yes, I will play on in a hopeless position, but over many hundreds of games, I can call to mind every instance because such nonsense is rare.
Blitz is different, especially online blitz. I resign late. Some of my opponents will do the same, and I'll sometimes promote pawns to minor pieces when my opponent plays on with a lone king. If my opponent wishes to test whether I can checkmate, then I'll show him that I can mate with two clerics in ten seconds, or a horse and bishop in thirty seconds (I've given up at least one draw showing off in this manner).
Apr 4, 2010
0
#98
From the OP's game, Black's position is clearly hopeless long before this position was reached. Perhaps White lacked the skill to demonstrate the win in an effecient manner. White might have played this way:
If you don't resign, then you better be prepared to take the punishment
I don't know why I am f***ing back here, " [ ie. resigning before mate] " there is nothing wrong to resign before being checkmate there is no rule against that.
p.s. this thread need to be lock up soon, no offense ohjamie