Originally posted by dpressnellYour opinion is as valid as any other expressed here and I have agreed to disagree with those who play to the bitter end despite being huge amounts of material down. Yet, I do consider that this attitude shows little self-respect... If it offended someone I am sorry!
I've seen in this thread people called "cowards." I've seen accusations of "gutless." And now I see somebody telling another person that the other person has no respect for himself.
All in the name of defending "courtesy," of course.
Can we add "crybabies" and "hypocrites" to the list now?
Maybe some people shouldn't play chess.
...[text shortened]... e of the nastiness and ugliness some self-professed "courteous" people display so gleefully.
I am not claiming either to be the most corteous player: Just the fact of how annoying it is to play against another person that is huge amounts of material down! That is the main premise of this thread!... Some people agreed with me some others didn't... Fair enough? If you think that I am an hypocrite or a crybaby for that so be it! It doesn't bother me at all because it is, as I read in another thread, a gratuitous insult [ This is one of the reasons I would become a subscriber here but since insults are offered for free why even pay for that? ]
I will continue playing chess despite kind suggestions not to do it... and having my opinions in the face of people that continue playing on a game when materially down.
Originally posted by buddy2Buddy,
Find out if your opponent is ill or is very aged. You might consider playing on until he stops moving (literally). A melancholy story: That happened to me once when (in the old days) we used postcards in the pre-cyber age. No cards arrived from this gentleman from Denmark for many months, even after I sent several reminders. Finally his widow wrote back ...[text shortened]...
[b]When I see all the ugliness and nastiness in the world I feel like punching someone's face.
This is indeed a very touching story that made me cry a lot and touched my inner fibers in such a way that can't be described by words.
One of the pleasures of playing correspondence chess is that we get to make friends all over the world and exchange not just moves but feelings and friendship.
Surely, there must have been romances that started this way and, who knows? maybe soulmates found their way to each other after a nice and interesting game.
I am deeply saddened by your loss because after all the Danish gentleman became part of your life while exchanging letters with moves to play a very interesting game...
Thanks for sharing that with me and all the rest of us...
Speaking of which. Can you post the game? Were you winning? Or are all those questions irrelevant and you can't bear the pain of remembering the game?
In regards to your other post where you feel like punching someone's face. I think that harvoring such feelings of violence can only harm you alone. Let us not be aggressive and deal with the fact that tolerance makes us deal with the ugliness and nastiness in the world.
I for one have to work on my attitude and deal with the fact that there are some people that insist on playing on a game where they are at a huge material disadvantage...
Kind regards,
Alopinto
I resign automatically if I'm down at least a piece with no compensation. The fact is, I messed up and I'm not going to get better hoping my opponent blunders and gives me his queen. The fact of the matter is that If you're down a piece without any other compensation, the game is lost and rather than hope your opponent makes a mistake, analyze your own previous mistaker, because there is no way you can be a piece down without making a blunder. Chess is not about hoping your opponent blunders, and we aren't playing for money or anything. Admit that you overlooked something and make sure you don't do it again. There is no need to force your opponent to waste precious time on a simple B+N+P+K vs. B+K ending.
A rematch at the starting position is much interesting than that.
Originally posted by GambitzoidI don't understand the implied logic that says if I blunder, then from that point on a blunder by my opponent is impossible.
I resign automatically if I'm down at least a piece with no compensation. The fact is, I messed up and I'm not going to get better hoping my opponent blunders and gives me his queen. The fact of the matter is that If you're down a piece without any other compensation, the game is lost and rather than hope your opponent makes a mistake, analyze your own ...[text shortened]... imple B+N+P+K vs. B+K ending.
A rematch at the starting position is much interesting than that.
As for keeping chess "interesting," it's interesting even when I'm down. My opponent's opinion of what's interesting to him is irrelevant when I'm playing for a win or a draw. Otherwise, I might as well let my opponent make my moves for me.
Originally posted by GambitzoidThank you!
I resign automatically if I'm down at least a piece with no compensation. The fact is, I messed up and I'm not going to get better hoping my opponent blunders and gives me his queen. The fact of the matter is that If you're down a piece without any other compensation, the game is lost and rather than hope your opponent makes a mistake, analyze your own ...[text shortened]... imple B+N+P+K vs. B+K ending.
A rematch at the starting position is much interesting than that.
*"The fact is, I messed up and I'm not going to get better hoping my opponent blunders and gives me his queen."
Yes you are. You are facing a greater challenge now - now you can afford to screw up even less than your opponent. The skill you are developing here is to not screw up again and to fight to the bitter end. Some of the most satisfying games I've ever had were where one side blundered, dropped a piece, and then fought brilliantly to obtain a draw or win. Now THAT'S fighting chess.
*"The fact of the matter is that If you're down a piece without any other compensation, the game is lost"
No it's not.
*"Chess is not about hoping your opponent blunders"
Yes it is. Or, it's about hoping your opponent makes a mistake, if you prefer that word over blunder, and that you can capitalize on it. If he never made mistakes then you'd be playing someone better than Kasparov.
*"Admit that you overlooked something and make sure you don't do it again."
I do admit it, I try not to do it again, and I keep playing.
*"There is no need to force your opponent to waste precious time on a simple B+N+P+K vs. B+K ending"
It depends on if I think he can pull it off or not. In this case, he probably can, but if he has made a lot of blunders during the game, then I might think he might blunder away the Pawn and then not know the B+N+K mate. I agree that deliberately waiting to move ust to be annoying is useless though.
*"A rematch at the starting position is much interesting than that."
Not necessarily. This is true only if the opponent clearly knows how to win the game.
"The hardest thing to win is a won game." - Tarrasch
*Yes you are. You are facing a greater challenge now - now you can afford to screw up even less than your opponent. The skill you are developing here is to not screw up again and to fight to the bitter end. Some of the most satisfying games I've ever had were where one side blundered, dropped a piece, and then fought brilliantly to obtain a draw or win. Now THAT'S fighting chess.*
If that is the case, why not play every game at bishop odds?
*Yes it is. Or, it's about hoping your opponent makes a mistake, if you prefer that word over blunder, and that you can capitalize on it. If he never made mistakes then you'd be playing someone better than Kasparov.*
There is a difference between a blunder and a mistake. A mistake is a bad move but the best move within one's ability. i.e. GM Donald Byrne's 14th move versus Fischer at the US Championships. A blunder is a clear tactical oversight not representative a player's abilities. i.e. Nigel Short giving up a rook at the Fide Championship. One was a mistake, the second a blunder. Immediately Short resigned, although it was certainly 'possible' his opponent would blunder the piece back.
*It depends on if I think he can pull it off or not. In this case, he probably can, but if he has made a lot of blunders during the game, then I might think he might blunder away the Pawn and then not know the B+N+K mate. I agree that deliberately waiting to move ust to be annoying is useless though.*
So what if he doesn't know the B+N+K mate? You want to waste your time making sure you know the best way to stall the B+N+K mate? How about resigning and reviewing the tactical and strategic oversights that put you two pieces down? That certainly will improve your chess more than stalling a published mate. Then again, you might lose a few half-points to novices who have yet to learn the mate... (I am being sarcastic on that last point!)
*"The hardest thing to win is a won game." - Tarrasch*
If only because it is the most time consuming thing tp win because some players are too crude as to not resign and instead insist on spending days per move to make your victory as sour and pyrrhic as possible.
Am I reading this right? Somebody now is advocating resigning rather than playing for a draw when you realistically believe you can get the draw?
What happened to chess as a competitive game, where you win if you can, and if you can't win, you draw if you can?
This thread is getting to be preposterous when advice is being given to resign what is thought to be a drawn game, and the players who try for such a draw are called "crude!"
What is going on here? My guess is that the complainers might not be sure about their own skills, and would prefer to have the game handed to them on a silver platter rather than having to earn it.
Originally posted by dpressnellRead Gambitzoid's post again:
Am I reading this right? Somebody now is advocating resigning rather than playing for a draw when you realistically believe you can get the draw?
What happened to chess as a competitive game, where you win if you can, and if you can't win, you draw if you can?
This thread is getting to be preposterous when advice is being given to resign what is t ...[text shortened]... ld prefer to have the game handed to them on a silver platter rather than having to earn it.
I resign automatically if I'm down at least a piece with no compensation
The key pharse being with no compensation. Clearly he's not talking about games where you have drawing chances.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI reread it. It says the same thing it said when I first read it.
Read Gambitzoid's post again:
[b]I resign automatically if I'm down at least a piece with no compensation
The key pharse being with no compensation. Clearly he's not talking about games where you have drawing chances.[/b]
Thanks for the pointless invitation, though, I guess.
Originally posted by AlopintoEven if I were a Queen and rook down, it would still depend on other factors, such as piece placement, and my judgement of the strength of the opponent.
I am referring to games where you have a huge material advantage... Like a queen and a rook... etc.
That's what I am talking about...
For example, say I had lost my queen and rook through sheer carelessness on my part, then there could be a chance that I might come back in the game, the opponent might make a mistake, for example.
I would rather that the opponent wins the game, than I back out of it.
Having said that though I seem to have resigned a lot of games recently. 🙁
Hi,
For me, when I don't have the attention to play, or the chance to face a tricky situation on board or in mind, or chance to enjoy the art of chess anymore, then the game should be ended.
It's only different in the result whether the game is ended with my resignation, or my opponent's, or draw offering or stalemate position. But the main factor is the art of chess.
Win, lose or draw is just a cinical differences. If you lose now maybe you can win tomorrow, or on the contrary, you win now and tomorrow you can be destructed. Hey, it's just a game. But what about the feeling of each game? It's never the same.
So, I think, the player who just didn't want to give up when he should be, was the player who want to feel a little bit longer the feeling of miserable, hurt, embarrasement, anger, and stubborn.
It's their rights to taste the feeling a little bit longer. So, why don't you (the winners, finally) give the poor defeated players the chance to live their times in their way?
Think about that, and you will be just smiling when you face this situation again.
Best luck for the loosers, and best modesty for the winners.
FEEL THE ART,
-Me-
Herasoul, I am sorry but your post makes no sense at all.
You asked, "It's their rights to taste the feeling a little bit longer. So, why don't you (the winners, finally) give the poor defeated players the chance to live their times in their way?"
Of course it is their right. They are allowed to do whatever they wish within the rules of the game. But the etiquette, dignity, and sportsmanship involved in chess dictate otherwise. For example, it is certainly within Robert J. Fischer's RIGHT to make inflammatory offensive remarks about Americans, Jews, et. al. But that is quite distateful, crude, and unbecoming of a representative of the Chess world, regardless of his tactical and strategic chess genius.
Why don't we give "poor defeated players the chance to live their times in their way?"
Well, we do. Every time I play somebody they have the chance to take as long as possible on every move with the sole object of wasting my time. But because they have the right to do so does not justify their actions or validate their reasons. That is why I am so adamant about resigning when appropiate.
Yes... I do concede that there is a possibility your opponent blunders his queen and you win. Wow, How amazing! You are now a better chess player because you know how to capture a queen for free after your opponent makes a tactical oversight! Or better yet, maybe his mouse slipped! O Joy, I am improving as a chess player and my tactics are so sharp I can destroy anybody with a poorly cleaned mouse, even if my opponent had crushed my crappy six pawn moves and seven bishop moves opening.
Tell me that kind of thinking is not sad....
Game 480767
This is probably my favourite game that I have played on RHP, purely because I went waaayyyyy behind due to a stupid attack, and then used my wits and skill to repel everything that was thrown at me. It was great fun being up to 2P v 2N + B down, and having to try to anticipate where I could be attacked. In the end, I sacrificed another piece in desperation to try to give my queen some space, and then after putting my opponent under pressure, he threw away his queen.
While this may have been an obvious blunder, I like to think I had something to do with forcing him into it.
If I followed your advice Gambitzoid, then I would have resigned on 22, and missed out on my favourite game.
As people have been saying it is players own choices whether they resign or not. We are, after all, not GMs and anything can happen. That's part of the fun.
D