I don't know why this upsets many players. While I don't normally continue a game that is obviously lost I don't expect my opponent to resign in what I consider to be a lost position.
Many times I've had higher rated players continue after a mistake. It's not always about hoping your opponent will make a mistake. Sometimes my opponent just wants to see how I carry out the game. It is interesting to discover more about your opponent even whey your game is lost.
I've won lost games where I discover that my opponent is an expert at tactical play, but has a very limited understanding of the endgame. This knowledge also affects my choice of openings the next time we play.
When I start a game I have no expectation of ending it until the game is officially over. If such were the case why shouldn't a player with a rating 200 points less than his opponent resign on the fist move?
Originally posted by petrovitchMy question was more about pace than anything. My opponent made several moves a day, and was actually pretty quick about moves when the game was very sharp and the outcome was unclear. Now that the outcome is far more certain, suddenly we are very slow. A curiosity is all I can affirm to at this point, and the diversity of opinions tells me that there is no one answer, that's for sure!
I don't know why this upsets many players. While I don't normally continue a game that is obviously lost I don't expect my opponent to resign in what I consider to be a lost position.
Many times I've had higher rated players continue after a mistake. It's not always about hoping your opponent will make a mistake. Sometimes my opponent just wants to ...[text shortened]... ouldn't a player with a rating 200 points less than his opponent resign on the fist move?
Paul
I played in tournaments where a player made a single move then left the building and let the time expire. That is unethical!
And players who stop moving and let time expire in a blitz game. That is unethical!
But I'm not sitting at a board waiting for my opponent to move in correspondence games. I don't care if his game is lost or if how long it takes for him to move. Life goes on.
Of course, it's all about intent, but if my opponent's actions do not affect me then I have no problem with their behavior.
Originally posted by wormwoodThis is true, Im sure if i have less games and take my time, I wont make the silly mistakes i make 😞
I always take a lot of time when there's any uncertainty of what to do. even when I'm winning. sometimes it can also happen during a forced recapture because I'm researching something a couple of moves later, and I need more than the 7 days I have. opening research can also sometimes mean I work through a whole book before committing or other materia ...[text shortened]... ly low rated players, there's a huge correlation between strength and taking one's time.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoHere's hoping I actually set this up correctly. It is King's Gambit, and I played the more conservative Be2 instead of Bc4. I follow GM Joe Gallagher's thinking in that I play the King's Gambit to A) Get some kingside attacking shots, or B) If I can't get A, convert my better endgame possibilities.
As a parting shot post the game up so we can enjoy. Congrats on the victory!
My edit: I figured the extra center pawn for White, the isolated h-pawn for Black, and the two bishops led to a plus. That was my strategic plan, but the game was actually won on a tactic, confirming the dictum that no plan survives contact with the enemy.
I wouldn't say it is not sportsman-like, but that's just me. It is only a 1-day per move game so it's not that bad in my opinion. I have played many opponents who play this way and not once have I ever thought of my opponent as not being sporting. I continue to play my best thankful my opponent is still playing giving me a chance to increase my technique. I guess just be thankful you are not playing a 14-day per move game instead. I personally see nothing wrong with what your opponent is doing. If you really do not like it, then just finish the game and keep in mind not to play that person again.
Hi
The lad had every right to play on there. It could easily have
been cocked-up. he had a passer for the piece your King was inactive
Bishop tied to the a-pawn....
When your opponent realised you were not going to cock-it -up and
saw you moving in for the kill he resigned.
Look at this pulled from the front page of RHP.
Now that is not resigning in a lost position par exccellance!
it is my belief (and I am willing to back this up with statistical evidence)
that you deliberatly started this thread so you could, as an excuse,
show us one of the most boring King's Gambits ever played in
the history of Chess.
(and that includes Bakofski v Muffakins, The Hauge, 1934 - the
game that had no corners).
Hence forth you shall be known as the man who took off the Queens
in a King's Gambit 😲
I will view all future posts with caution.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I just joined the King's Gambiteers club on the site about two weeks ago, and here I go trying to get myself kicked out! To be honest, I had never seen the line with the early ...Bg4 before, so I viewed it as an opportunity to get the two bishops, and he surprised me with the whole ...Qxf4 thing.
Hi
The lad had every right to play on there. It could easily have
been cocked-up. he had a passer for the piece your King was inactive
Bishop tied to the a-pawn....
When your opponent realised you were not going to cock-it -up and
saw you moving in for the kill he resigned.
Look at this pulled from the front page of RHP.
Now that is not resi ...[text shortened]... who took off the Queens
in a King's Gambit 😲
I will view all future posts with caution.
I agree, he should have played on, if for no other reason than I myself have won games on the site I should have lost from worse positions, and at my level, mistakes are part of the human chess condition. White had a Bb3 coming, and that was going to be Black's biggest challenge.
Paul
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI know this trouble very good. 😕
Hi folks,
This is a question about which I have mixed feelings, and I am curious about what others think.
I am currently a piece up in a game that I expect to win without much effort. My opponent continues to play (which I am cool with, as he has every right to test my technique), but he has now slowed down to the minimum of one move a day allowe ...[text shortened]... I am curious to know what other players think.
Paul Leggett
http://discountchess.110mb.com/