Originally posted by skeeterWell Skeeter, you are a good player and repect you for that and more so being a woman in the top list.
..and enter stage left, Feivel the Weethinker, whose strings are being pulled by Kees, all the way from Utrecht I suspect. Hmmmm?
skeeter
Mud slinging will do you no good. Let your mouse (moving pieces)do all the talking.
Friends
I really respect David Tebb. He is top ranked, Even when a thread was started seeking his coments on how he felt getting back on top he simply kept quiet. thats humility and mark of a great person.
Skeeter Cheer up
Bye
Prashant
Did you ask them to resign? On the other hand, I have asked to play it out when I am losing to a high rated player. And sometimes it's fun to see what imaginative way they go on the final attack.
But since you are not across the board, how will they know you are annoyed? Then again, maybe they like to annoy you since it's easy. ðŸ˜
Yea, totally, just chill out. Everyone has games like that, it's part of chess.
I've probably got the ultimate going on right now :-)
Game 341246
but really, so what? Good practice at not slipping into stalemate traps.
This is quite a political topic if you ask me folks.
I completly see Skeeters point - there is absolutely no point in dragging on with a match against a top player when you are four pawns down with no material to achieve any counter-play whatsoever. Also, any of the top players are not really expected to make a substantial mistake to give away an advantage like that. In so far I support Skeeter and can only beg any player to have the courtesy to resign in these hopeless positions. I would further not accept the argument of 'learning' as mentioned throughout the thread as let face it - no-one is learning anything if left with a king against four pawns ... What is there left to learn ???
On the other hand, every player has the right to play until they are check-mated which is an undebatable right when playing chess (and that's why this gets political)...
I personally would not drag on with a match in that I have no chance anymore ...
Kindest Regards
The Slow (always political correct :-) Pawn
PS: Skeeter, I'll send you a reminder in a few weeks for our game(s) as I'm still involved in six :-(
I learnt the majority of my endgame play by carrying on in hopeless situations. I will always state that even in a dire position you can still learn something from watching your opponent kill you off.
Saying this I will ensure that my opponent does not mind me playing on first.
I do agree that there are some cases where resigning is the right thing, but generally I think the player losing in a game does have the right to play on ias long as his motives are not for just stalling the inevitable.
Originally posted by eyeqpcI don't mind playing on to the last move (checkmate or whatever), as long as it is for the chess, not for gaining time, like one move in 14 days.
I learnt the majority of my endgame play by carrying on in hopeless situations. I will always state that even in a dire position you can still learn something from watching your opponent kill you off.
Saying this I will ensure that my opponent does not mind me playing on first.
I do agree that there are some cases where resigning is the right thing, but ge ...[text shortened]... does have the right to play on ias long as his motives are not for just stalling the inevitable.
Originally posted by eyeqpcEyeqpc,
I learnt the majority of my endgame play by carrying on in hopeless situations. I will always state that even in a dire position you can still learn something from watching your opponent kill you off.
Saying this I will ensure that my opponent does not mind me playing on first.
I do agree that there are some cases where resigning is the right thing, but ge ...[text shortened]... does have the right to play on ias long as his motives are not for just stalling the inevitable.
I do agree in playing in 'lost' positions to see how well you can defend yourself but as you said in total hopeless position as skeeter indicated with her first post, I do not see the point in carrying on ...
Anyway, METAL rules and that matters most :-)
Regards
The Slow (head-banging) Pawn
My problem tends to run opposite to Skeeter's opponents. I tend to resign too quickly when it would probably be to my advantage to play on and learn something.🙂
Actually, I'm wondering how someone has time to;
1) Be playing 209 games at one time and be able to find time to analyze all of them without the use of a computer (which I thought was a no-no here).
2) To find time to play 209 games at one time.
Originally posted by SsudukhHmmmm. It would be all too easy to mis-interpret your tone Ssudukh and so I am going to take a leaf out of Flexmores book and treat your post as just genuine curiousity with an unfortunate choice of words.
My problem tends to run opposite to Skeeter's opponents. I tend to resign too quickly when it would probably be to my advantage to play on and learn something.🙂
Actually, I'm wondering how someone has time to;
1) Be playing 209 gam ...[text shortened]... was a no-no here).
2) To find time to play 209 games at one time.
To your points; 1) I simply do not play all my games at the same time. I select the next game closest to a time control, analyse my opponents move, refer to my notes, consider my available responses and then move. After recording that move and updating my notes I move to the next game.
2) A 200 game portfolio is just a matter of time management. Less than 10% (some 20 odd matches) require careful analysis. The rest are no-brainers by virtue of fact that most are already lost and I need only to exhange out, manage the time controls and not blunder.
I hope this addressess your concerns
BR's skeeter
..and yet another. Game 364712
Clearly a win with two passed pawns supported by a significant material advantage.
Originally posted by skeeter....academic now - resigned.
..and yet another. Game 364712
Clearly a win with two passed pawns supported by a significant material advantage.
skeeter
I never resign a game unless the game pieces that are left dictate otherwise. ie king/knight, king/bishop etc. The reason is that the beginning, middle and end game are ALL important to me and any opponent. To me the end is never done until I or my opponent is checkmated. There are too many variables until otherwise. If a player is moving within the time limit YOU agreed on, that person is within the rules. Regardless, if they are taking thier time due to a losing cause. In the end, you will win regardless. Patience is a virtue, and chess is linked to patience. If you don't like the speed of a game then next time DO NOT accept a long time rate between moves.
LoD
Originally posted by SsudukhI totally agree this is ridiculous, maybe there should be a limit on how many games at once. Even if it was just taken to 100 which allows room for ones that want to drag a game, or have a life to live in between their past time.😵
My problem tends to run opposite to Skeeter's opponents. I tend to resign too quickly when it would probably be to my advantage to play on and learn something.🙂
Actually, I'm wondering how someone has time to;
1) Be playing 209 games at one time and be able to find time to analyze all of them without the use of a computer (which I thought was a no-no here).
2) To find time to play 209 games at one time.