18 Oct 04
From time to time you will encounter people who attempt to ruin your enjoyment of the game by imposing undefinable rules on when you should "resign." Don't let it bother you. There are two players to a chess game, and you are entitled to make all the deccisions regarding the play of the game that the rules allow you to make.
They will sometimes be rude to you and tell you that YOU are rude because you are not resigning and handing the game to them on a silver platter. Such people think that being required to actually win the game is offensive to them, so they want you to quit and declare them the winner.
You can do that if you want, but you should not be misled about this "respect" or "courtesy" argument that they throw at your in their attempt to make you feel guilty. They have no repsect for the rules of the game, they don't respect your rights as a chess player, they prefer to berate you rather than follow through with their imagined skill and checkmate you.
Amazingly, you will discover that many of these people who complain about games taking too long consider it a solution for them to drag out the game even more!
Generally, the weaker a player, the more likely that player is to feel cheated by your playing on to the best of your ability. As a player's rating goes up, the whining becomes much less.
Don't let these people get to you. If it concerns you that these people seem too pitiful to ignore, just remind yourself that if they want the game to end, it is entirely within their power. After all, they tend to say that it's not important to win, once you've had your lesson, although they don't apply that to themselves and resign once they've won material.
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellAH-HA!!! So this is the "hypocrisy" of which this drooling loon speaks! It's hypocritical to ask other people to resign when they've lost unless YOU resign when you've won!
although they don't apply that to themselves and resign once they've won material.
Do we need any more evidence that dpressnell is so stupid that (s)he probably has to have someone else operate the keyboard to spew these blitherings?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaI'm sure you have seen posts that criticize people for playing on for a win, calling the win pointless once the "lesson" is delivered?
AH-HA!!! So this is the "hypocrisy" of which this drooling loon speaks! It's hypocritical to ask other people to resign when they've lost unless YOU resign when you've won!
Do we need any more evidence that dpressnell is so stupid that (s)he probably has to have someone else operate the keyboard to spew these blitherings?
If the lesson is the object, and the win not deserving to be sought, then why does one side get to play on for a win, but the other side not?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaWhat happend to that other thread you started? You know, the one with all the insults.
AH-HA!!! So this is the "hypocrisy" of which this drooling loon speaks! It's hypocritical to ask other people to resign when they've lost unless YOU resign when you've won!
Do we need any more evidence that dpressnell is so stupid that (s)he probably has to have someone else operate the keyboard to spew these blitherings?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellBecause one side has realistic chances of the win, and the other does not. helloooooo. The taking of your opponent's time playing for a win isn't the rudeness. The POINTLESS taking of your opponent's time playing for a win is.
If the lesson is the object, and the win not deserving to be sought, then why does one side get to play on for a win, but the other side not?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaWho decides that it's pointless and worthy of scorn and riducule?
Because one side has realistic chances of the win, and the other does not. helloooooo. The taking of your opponent's time playing for a win isn't the rudeness. The POINTLESS taking of your opponent's time playing for a win is.
18 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by dpressnellAnyone. I'm not talking about hard cases. LET ME BE CLEAR ON THIS, because you're obviously playing (or not playing) dumb to avoid this point.
Who decides that it's pointless and worthy of scorn and riducule?
I'm not talking about cases where reasonable people could disagree.
I'm talking about cases where the losing party has absolutely no play whatsoever. They're in an endgame. They have two pawns left. One is a king pawn, blockaded. The other is a rook pawn sitting on their own second rank. The opponent also has two pawns. And two rooks. That position is hopelessly lost. Reasonable people can not disagree on that. Anyone who thinks such a position has any drawing chances whatsoever unless both players are 800 or below is simply wrong.
Positions like that.
Where one party has an totally overwhelming advantage, but it will take a long time to mate because of the simple nature of the game. If there's pawns lying around on the board, even if they have absolutely no chance of creating threats or promoting, those pawns provide hiding places for a king.
They force the opponent, with, say, a spare rook in a totally placid endgame to take 6 more slow, boring, time-wasting moves to queen a spare pawn, then 4 or 5 to chase the king out of its nest of pawns, then another 5 or 6 to force mate. FOR WHAT?? What did the person with the king and a couple pawns PROVE in that situation, apart from the fact that they can make their opponent, who has outplayed them from move one, WAIT AN EXTRA TWO HOURS TO PERFORM A SILLY ROUTINE TASK? What right do they have?
I'm not saying everyone who is down material should resign. I could say no such thing! I'm notorious for my sacrifices, for chrissakes. I am saying that people who are down a LOT of material in an ENDGAME without ANY COMPENSATION WHATSOEVER, EVEN ARGUABLE (eg. exposed enemy king, pawn structure, promotion threats, complicated position, whatever) should resign.
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellMost people have intelligence enough to discern where the threshold is. You may be able to make the case that a person who is only down a piece shouldn't resgin because if he blundered, so can his opponent. But once you're down, say, two rooks (and we're talking no compensation), the time you spend playing on would be much better spent starting a fresh game.
Who decides that it's pointless and worthy of scorn and riducule?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellRidiculous!
From time to time you will encounter people who attempt to ruin your enjoyment of the game by imposing undefinable rules on when you should "resign." Don't let it bother you. There are two players to a chess game, and you are entitled to make all the deccisions regarding the play of the game that the rules allow you to make.
They will sometimes be ...[text shortened]... our lesson, although they don't apply that to themselves and resign once they've won material.
If there actually is a beginner reading this, my advice would be:
1. Learn the basic mates - K+Q v K, K+R v K, K+2B v K, (if you have the energy) K+B+N v K.
2. (Except in the case of K+B+N v K) Once you're reached a position where your opponent can mate you with the basic patters above, politely thank him/her and resign, unless you think he/she doesn't know what he/she is doing. If, for instance, your opponent starts pushing your King to the corner of the board in standard K+R pattern, then he/she probably knows what he/she is doing.
3. PM your opponent and ask for his/her analysis of what went wrong in the game (if it wasn't an obvious blunder - like leaving a Queen en prise, for instance). More often than not, your opponent is more experienced than you are and will be willing to point out improvements in the game.
4. If you think the position really was equal and had chances for either side when you made the critical mistake/blunder, request a set-piece game from the position in question. I rarely refuse such a request, and I don't know most players will.
With a little bit of courtesy and gamesmanship, you can go a long way in both the study of chess and gaining friends on this site.
Luc
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellWho decides what is a "reasonable" amount to be over the speed limit on the highway? You know that you can afford to go over it a little bit, almost assuredly at least 5 MPH over, but if you continue to test the speed limit, you continually increase the risk that you'll get pulled over. But where is the threshold? There isn't one. Some reasonable people might put it at 10 MPH, but there are areas where even that will get you pulled over. Now, just apply this example to chess. There's no clear line drawn, but a reasonable person should be able to formulate an opinion about when his position has gone from bad to utterly ridiculous.
So in a chess game between you and your opponent, who decides what "reasonable people" would agree on?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellI am a beginner and will always be. Thanks for such a piece of precious advice from such a fantastic player.
From time to time you will encounter people who attempt to ruin your enjoyment of the game by imposing undefinable rules on when you should "resign." Don't let it bother you. There are two players to a chess game, and you are entitled to make all the deccisions regarding the play of the game that the rules allow you to make.
They will sometimes be ...[text shortened]... our lesson, although they don't apply that to themselves and resign once they've won material.
Thank you!
18 Oct 04
1 edit
if someone rudely told me to resign i'd either play on obstinately or resign on the spot and vow never to play them again. But if they politely mentioned that they had a forced mate or pointed out their winning position i'd resign and congratulate them.
I've had my fill of arrogant smartarses on yahoo for 1 lifetime!!
Who likes being told what to do?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by martinbeaver" if someone rudely told me to resign "
if someone rudely told me to resign i'd either play on obstinately or resign on the spot and vow never to play them again. But if they politely mentioned that they had a forced mate or pointed out their winning position i'd resign and congratulate them.
I've had my fill of arrogant smartarses on yahoo for 1 lifetime!!
Who likes being told what to do?
How about nicely? What if I point to you respectfully that you should consider resigning?