Originally posted by rodrigonovaesThat is my point exactly.
I do understand how to mate K+R vs. K. Yes, it's very simple. If my opponent is 1400+, of course I will resign immediately (probably even before that).
The thing is, I like banded tournaments. And just the other day, a player in the high-1200 range (which is where I would be, if I hadn't gotten so many timeouts), was asking here in this same forum I ...[text shortened]... is bad sportsmanship, but hey instead of two losses, I got a draw and a win. Not bad at all.
Originally posted by t0lkienpersonally i wouldnt have quit, i still think at the very least there's a draw in it
Game 3806719
My opponent resigned, but I thought it was still a bit of a fight and that he had somce chances, particularly with the good bishop.
Originally posted by rodrigonovaesThread 57657
I do understand how to mate K+R vs. K. Yes, it's very simple. If my opponent is 1400+, of course I will resign immediately (probably even before that).
The thing is, I like banded tournaments. And just the other day, a player in the high-1200 range (which is where I would be, if I hadn't gotten so many timeouts), was asking here in this same forum I ...[text shortened]... is bad sportsmanship, but hey instead of two losses, I got a draw and a win. Not bad at all.
Originally posted by rodrigonovaesYou may have a valid point against low rated players, who might lack the knowledge to convert basic checkmates. But that would fall into the first provision that I stated earlier...you don't have any respect for your opponent. If, during the course of the game, you come to the opinion that your opponent may not know what they are doing, then you are quite justified in losing respect for their abilities and playing on and laying as many traps as you can. I recently had to accept draws against two different 1300-ish players because I frankly did not play well in one game, and in the other there were moments the opponent seemed to play well above his rating... In either case, there was about a 400 point rating difference when I began the games, and I took quite a hit. In one game I was close to resigning, but resisted the urge because I wanted to see if my opponent could find the winning plan (even though I thought it was pretty obvious, I took his rating into consideration). He didn't find it and offered a draw. I took the draw (shamelessly) and then told him how I thought he had a rather easy win. He didn't message me back 😛.
I do understand how to mate K+R vs. K. Yes, it's very simple. If my opponent is 1400+, of course I will resign immediately (probably even before that).
The thing is, I like banded tournaments. And just the other day, a player in the high-1200 range (which is where I would be, if I hadn't gotten so many timeouts), was asking here in this same forum I ...[text shortened]... is bad sportsmanship, but hey instead of two losses, I got a draw and a win. Not bad at all.
rodrigonovaes and 8D, the two of you are obviously weak players who live by cheap tactical tricks and it's natural that you would keep playing. I constantly am up 2-3 pieces against a weak player and have to play it out 20 more moves until I can queen a pawn or mate him. This is absolutely tiresome and BLReid, I think if you would keep playing these types of positions, it's not a lack of respect for your opponent but a lack of self respect.
"As I said, I will usually resign if playing K+Q vs K, which is RIDICULOUSLY easy. But I'm starting to reconsider even that. The last 2 times I decided to play it out, I got a DRAW (stalemate) and a WIN (by timeout of course). "
That's extremely offensive to your opponent after having to fight many moves to be able to be up a queen then you pull the skull on him and feel self satisfied???
It's totally up to the player to decide when to fold. Sometimes they are simply practicing bad positions. If a strong player plays a weak player then shame on him if he has to be inconvenienced by having to work for the win. Sometimes playing on results in a blunder which can turn the game around. 1600 players still have their share of blunders and shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt on making the correct moves to the win.
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7First of all, please show me anywhere that I said I'd play out a position with a K+Q vs K or similarly one sided position. You won't find it, and you're out of line. Secondly, the fact that they are not as good at chess as you or me does not give you the right to insult them. After all, we are not as good as many other players..it's all relative. All things in chess must be learned, including etiquette. To point out to them that certain actions are rude or insulting is fair, to be rude yourself defeats the purpose.
...and BLReid, I think if you would keep playing these types of positions, it's not a lack of respect for your opponent but a lack of self respect.
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7I don't. That's why I said it's bad sportsmanship. But anyway my opponent has to follow the tournament rules, doesn't he?
That's extremely offensive to your opponent after having to fight many moves to be able to be up a queen then you pull the skull on him and feel self satisfied???[/b]
Originally posted by MoneyMaker7I will take no exception to your remark, just note that what you call "cheap tactical tricks" is simply not assuming correct play by the opponent. Of course, it makes no sense in the 1700 range, but it does on the 1200, mainly because my opponent will act the same. So if they don't resign after blundering their queen for nothing, why shouldn't I drag the game for as long as I like when I'm down?
rodrigonovaes and 8D, the two of you are obviously weak players who live by cheap tactical tricks and it's natural that you would keep playing. I constantly am up 2-3 pieces against a weak player and have to play it out 20 more moves until I can queen a pawn or mate him. This is absolutely tiresome (...)
If you don't want the hassle of queening pawns and actually mating people, play only in your own league. I do play only in mine, so people like you don't get "tired" by people like me.
And by the way... most chess games are won by tactics, not strategy. Thought a 1700 player would know that much.