06 Oct 04
Originally posted by Natural SciencePerhaps reminders should only be available when your opponent's timebank has run out (or is just about to run out)
Amen, Buddy. If there's one unneeded novelty I wish Russ would do away with, that's it right there. They certainly don't help me to remember a game that has slipped my mind, and they certainly don't cause me to move any faster.
If you see that I haven't moved in your game in several days, when I've been moving in other games daily, pat yourself on the back! You're doing very well! You causing me to have quite a think!
07 Oct 04
I don't like timebanks and I don't like "reminders." I do respect vacations. That's something people can't help. I think, however, that people should look at their list of games occasionally and keep track of what's going on. I went on vacation and half my opponents timed me out after seven days. C'est la vie. The other people were good enough to let me continue. If someone has to work for two weeks and can't look at the screen, he can punch the vacation flag and I'll leave the game be. I haven't had anybody abuse vacations. I consider a vacation flag for anything happens foreseen or unforeseen.
07 Oct 04
Originally posted by sourceviewOn the other hand: I participated in an OTB team match recently. Started at 8. Most of the games were over by 10:30-11. One game drug on. And drug on. And drug on. My teammate was in a totally lost position, down material, with untouchable passed pawns bearing down on him, in an endgame. Still he played on. His opponent got to a queen vs. pawn. Still he played on. His opponent promoted a second queen (for some insane reason). Still he played on. He played until checkmate, after midnight.
I teach my students never to resign! always go for the win or draw! Part of playing is the psychological edge one gets when frustrating an opponent. Obviously you can be frustrated, and many times that can be turned into a win or a draw!!!
I consider that a sadistic attempt to deprive your teammates of sleep. I haven't been back.
07 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaIn one of my ongoing games, we were left in a position where my opponent had three isolated pawns (one of them a passer) vs. my three connected pawns, a Rook and a Bishop. After sacking my Bishop for his passer, I've managed to cut his King off from all the pawns with the Rook.
On the other hand: I participated in an OTB team match recently. Started at 8. Most of the games were over by 10:30-11. One game drug on. And drug on. And drug on. My teammate was in a totally lost position, down material, with untouchable passed pawns bearing down on him, in an endgame. Still he played on. His opponent got to a queen vs. pawn. S ...[text shortened]...
I consider that a sadistic attempt to deprive your teammates of sleep. I haven't been back.
What should I do now? Should I try a simple R+K checkmate? Or go for the extravagant and promote all three of my pawns?
07 Oct 04
Originally posted by lucifershammerGo for whatever you deem to be the quickest way to win. It's bad form to deliberately delay checkmate. It's like an American football player running toward the endzone, and he realizes no one can catch him, so he turns around and holds the ball out tauntingly in the direction of the closest defender while he runs backwards into the endzone.
In one of my ongoing games, we were left in a position where my opponent had three isolated pawns (one of them a passer) vs. my three connected pawns, a Rook and a Bishop. After sacking my Bishop for his passer, I've managed to cut his King off from all the pawns with the Rook.
What should I do now? Should I try a simple R+K checkmate? Or go for the extravagant and promote all three of my pawns?
07 Oct 04
Originally posted by Natural ScienceIt's also bad form to deliberately delay resignation. I say promote the pawns to two bishops and a knight, then sac the rook and mate with that.
It's bad form to deliberately delay checkmate. It's like an American football player running toward the endzone, and he realizes no one can catch him, so he turns around and holds the ball out tauntingly in the direction of the closest defender while he runs backwards into the endzone.
07 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by paultopiaSorry, but I find delaying checkmate a much more serious breech of etiquette than delaying resigning. And besides, it only makes you look foolish. You're getting agitated with your opponent for wasting your time by not conceding the ineviatble, so your response to this is to.....delay the inevitable yourself by putting off checkmate to obtain some more queens? Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Don't you see you're playing directly into his hands? He wants to see more queens form you. He's hoping you'll fill the board with queens, and be foolish enough to not leave his king with any legal moves.
It's also bad form to deliberately delay resignation. I say promote the pawns to two bishops and a knight, then sac the rook and mate with that.
Edit: And as for the bishop and knight idea, well, it's suprisingly easy to step on the 50-move rule if you don't know what you're doing. You may get to use this checkmate once or twice in your entire lifetime, and let's be honest....does anyone actually practice this mate?
07 Oct 04
Originally posted by Natural ScienceFrankly, unless it's at the complete newbie (say elo <900) level, I don't think players should be ALLOWED to play on in completely undrawable endgame positions. It's unfair to the opponent, who is forced to sit around waiting for you to think about your stupid pointless moves when they've got an effortless forced mate in 15 or so moves. People who don't realize that they're going to lose in positions like lucifershammer described have no right to waste another hour of their opponent's time.
Sorry, but I find delaying checkmate a much more serious breech of etiquette than delaying resigning. And besides, it only makes you look foolish. You're getting agitated with your opponent for wasting your time by not conceding the ineviatble, so your response to this is to.....delay the inevitable yourself by putting off checkmate to obtain some ...[text shortened]... twice in your entire lifetime, and let's be honest....does anyone actually practice this mate?
There ought to be an "insufficient drawing chances" rule similar to the "insufficient losing chances rule:" claim a win if there's less than X pawns of material on the board and an IM couldn't draw against a class D player from the position.
07 Oct 04
Originally posted by Natural ScienceI actually saw this come up in a coffeeshop game a while back. Fortunately, I wasn't playing 🙂. The guy couldn't do it.
Edit: And as for the bishop and knight idea, well, it's suprisingly easy to step on the 50-move rule if you don't know what you're doing. You may get to use this checkmate once or twice in your entire lifetime, and let's be honest....does anyone actually practice this mate?
But TWO bishops and a knight should be easy.
07 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaOnce I was at a tournament, I believe it was the Carolinas Open, and this was the last round of the tournament. There was one game still going on in the section I played in, and those of us who were going to get prize money were staying around because the outcome of this game would affect the prize money. One of the players had a distinct advantage, not nearly as lopsided as some of the situations described in this thread, but there was no question this was a definite win. I don't remember what the position looked like, all I remember is that I felt I would have no trouble pushing through for the win if I were playing. The other players who were watching felt the same way, and we were all quietly asking each other, why isn't this guy resigning? It's hopeless.
I actually saw this come up in a coffeeshop game a while back. Fortunately, I wasn't playing 🙂. The guy couldn't do it.
But TWO bishops and a knight should be easy.
But as the game drew on, it became more and more clear, until it was painfully obvious that this guy just could not come up with a plan to get the win. As move afetr move was played, there were so many exasperated groans that I'm suprised the tournament director didn't tell us all to leave the hall. Finally he blundered right into a stalemate that his opponenet had cleverly set up. I wasn't happy, because this outcome adversely affected the share of prize money I would be getting. It just goes to show you, an iron will, a steel resolve, and an absent-minded opponent can combine to bring you back from the brink of defeat.
08 Oct 04
Generally, the higher rated opponents resign when they consider they have a lost game. The lower rated you go, the less likely the player will resign, sometimes in any circumstances. I think they harbor the wish that you will stalemate them with your three queens! Or maybe they hate to see their rating go down. In my opinion, I think it best to resign in a lost game and nail down in your mind why you lost so that you don't do it again. Better to conserve your energy for the more problematic games in your portfolio. But when all is said and down, your opponent has the right to play it down to mate, and I don't begrudge them that. It's really easy to play in an easily won position and it doesn't take long to think about.