17 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Ramnedi prefer:
Adhere to this:
1) not over until it's over
2) your opponent is always better than you.
1) it's not over until someone is in a lost position (depending on how you define "over" ), if the guy with the lost game gets back in it, it's his opponents fault.
2) you're always better than your opponent, it's your job to prove it
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by YUG0slavI'm not saying he actually he is btter, I'm saying PLAY as if your opponent is better.
i prefer:
1) it's not over until someone is in a lost position (depending on how you define "over" ), if the guy with the lost game gets back in it, it's his opponents fault.
2) you're always better than your opponent, it's your job to prove it
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by cmsMasterEveryone is acting like he was asking a serious question. Give the guy a break, he was just being sardonic for god's sake, injecting a bit of humor on a winter's day.
I'm starting to think the average IQ on the Only chess forum is below 75. 🙁
Does it matter if he has good chances to win? You haven't won yet, so he's allowed to play on. Just shut your mouth and finish the game. There are so many of these stupid threads asking about resignations. People will resign when they're good and ready, starting another use ...[text shortened]... imply inane. Get over it - he hasn't resigned, he might now, so checkmate him or be quiet.
18 Dec 06
Instead of discussing an on-going situation, I contacted the guy who was playing the position and he said his opponent never asked him about resigning. Now, I personally see no point in playing out the position (although I certainly think you have a right to play until checkmate); however, why is there a huge thread about this situation when the author of the thread never even bothered to discuss it with his opponent?
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by cmsMasterCheckmating him with two queens is easy but he shouldn't resign. I'd try and play for a stalemate.
I'm starting to think the average IQ on the Only chess forum is below 75. 🙁
Does it matter if he has good chances to win? You haven't won yet, so he's allowed to play on. Just shut your mouth and finish the game. There are so many of these stupid threads asking about resignations. People will resign when they're good and ready, starting another use ...[text shortened]... imply inane. Get over it - he hasn't resigned, he might now, so checkmate him or be quiet.
21 Dec 06
Originally posted by Diet CokeAt club night I was playing a friendly against some idiot, I was knackered and had played terribly and therefore was down 2 pawns and a queen with both sides having a rook.
But that means you've been nearly beaten by an incompetent.
If I were down queen and some pawns with only a king left I'd be embarrassed to get into that position against someone who didn't know how to finish it off.
I then proceeded to play my last move with at least one way for him to checkmate me.
Unfortunately for him he noticed my en prise rook, which he promptly lifted off the board replacing it with his queen. Upon which I exhaustedly lifted my arms in mock celebration of a stalemate against someone my team captain had suggested I give a rook advantage to.
Oh, the irony.
21 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AlethiaDid you follow the last one? GMs regularily resign in lost positions. Especially since there can be no doubt that their opponent has the skill to finish them off.
Oh, so now I'm an idiot?
Would you resign if it were a World Champ. Match?
That said, if you don't want to resign, then don't. You may get lucky and get a stalemate. Personally against most opponents, I just resign, but it's a personal choice. The only thing that bugs me is when the losing side drags it out as long as possible (always using their entire timeout on every move).