Boylston Chess Club
Mike,
In your game against DV, you were better off following the recommendation of Spassky in his game against Kasparov, Reykjavik 1988, in which he preserved his bishop with 4. Bc4 (instead of 4. f4?) and after 4...e6 5. Nf3 Ne7 6. 0-0 Nec6 7. d3 the game was eventually drawn some moves later. Don't be so eager to part with your light-squared bishop so early vs. the Sicilian. After DV played ...d5 (the ideal freeing move for Sicilian players), Black gained the upper hand in your game.
You dont need to ask the director to count the moves. You can claim 50 move by yourself. Only if the opponent disagrees does the director examine your scoresheet.
wow, that was a real barn burner of a game
I think it's completely fine to play forever, however if your position is hopeless simply move quickly.
If you move relatively quickly, even in a hopeless position, then it shouldn't take long anyway so its no big deal.
What I hate is a total joke absurd position where my opponent goes into the tank for 20 minutes. I will never consider anyone rude for not resigning though, strange things happen all the time, you just never know.
Unless there is significant time pressure, I think it's pretty rude to force an opponent that has unstoppable passed pawns or more than a couple of minor pieces to mate a lone king.
I agree with George's comments about 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 and now 4. Bc4.
The position after 4. f4 Nxb5 5. Nxb5 d5 is interesting, e.g. 6. exd5 Nf6 7. Nf3 Nxd5 8. 0-0 and the position is equal.
White deserves better out of the opening.
You should resign as white after 1...d6;
You should resign as Black after 1 e4.
My feeling is that you play on as long as you feel you need to. There are some high-rated players that play to mate occasionally. I've had opponents play on until mate, with virtually zero chance of me screwing the pooch. It's your prerogative to play on. It's your game too.
Mike, the photo of you captures that moment of helplessness and decision perfectly!
Only play on if there is some sensible, concrete chess reason to do so - a judgment call. That said I don't get upset if someone plays on in a position that is obviously hopeless (even against me): 1) I could always use the practice; 2) They paid their $2 to have the experience of playing.
Playing till mate when your opponent is a good player is disrespectful to him and to the game itself.
I agree with Greg to a large extent, but what I find rude and irritating is the player who is lost but still asks after every move, Draw? Draw? Draw?
Bob -- I find the behavior you describe irritating as well, regardless of whether the offeror has a lost, drawn, or even won position.
I defend unbelievably well with a lone king.
Greg,
I once watched a player taking several minutes with a lone king vs. as a king and rook. He was my teammate, and we were supposed to get dinner, but there he is, pondering each move.
The funny thing is-- his opponent didn't know how to complete the mate and it became a draw. Of course, my friend's annoying pauses between moves only prolonged the drawing process.
Painful.
Well only morons as well as some kids who just don't know any better can offer draws on every move in a lost position.I'd say its not really a problem above 1800-2000. Its up to scholastic coaches to teach respect and etiqutte to up and coming generation.
In last weekend's $10 open, I resigned after carelessly dropping two pieces in a game I was already fed up with by move 15, because my opponent, a kid I estimate to be around 11 years old, was making no effort to conceal his boredom. He could barely bring himself to pay attention to our game -- every move I made, I had to wait for him to come back from whatever game he'd wandered off to watch -- and he was still clobbering me. If I had been enjoying the game at all, I might have forced him to play it to the bitter end, but it wasn't worth it. A crummy finish to the day, after two other games (in my first and third rounds) that were among the most fun I'd ever played.
After I resigned, he immediately jumped up and went off to watch another game again. I was seriously tempted to pull a Nigel Short, but confined myself to telling him that he'd forgotten something at the board: his manners.
My opinion is, the right time to resign is when there are no longer any plausible scenarios left by which you can get at least a draw.
EWC,
Sure, but define plausible. I once watched two masters play on even though one of the masters was down two pieces and a couple of pawns and had just a rook. The other master was furious and kept yelling, "Check!" "Check!" and was laughing and obviously very annoyed that his opponent kept playing on.
Then, out of the blue, the master who refused to resign grunts out a "Check" of his own. Everyone's jaw dropped to the floor when we realized that King takes Rook is a stalemate, and the hitherto-winning king can no longer hide from the rook constant checks.
Now, was this really a plausible situation? Maybe it was, given the ridiculously cocky and annoying master number 1?! Certainly it was when stalemate appeared on the board, but what about all those move down 2 pieces? And in hindsight, maybe the master should have graciously resigned, and certainly master number one shouldn't have been so annoying.
I've resigned a few games where I actually would be winning if I found the right move. A few weeks ago my opponent resigned thinking he was losing a rook. He actually has a defense, and he was up a pawn at the time.
2 weeks ago I played on in a game where I was down a rook for a pawn after 17 moves. I was totally disgusted with how that occurred and I didn't feel like ending a good tournament on such a crappy note. Later in the game when it appeared mate was coming soon I almost resigned, but played this knight check. If my opponent goes to the wrong square I win. He didn't but I did pull out a draw.
I think for us club players, versus other crappy club players (present company excluded, of course ), it's fine to play on in a lost situation, for a while anyway. Once it gets down to a K+Q vs. K situation though, it's time to tip over the king.
I think it's OK for us to play against experts in a losing position (say -2.00 or so) as many of them are quite capable of shocking tactical blunders, but masters and above should be given the rest of the night off. Just my opinion.
However, if it was me versus Dave, down a piece, I would have played on just to piss him off.
(I'm joking!)
-Matt
Well I had to witness "my other brain is a gm" play down 2 pawns (3 connected passers vs 1 with a pawn on h6 and a rook on h
until the pawn was about to promote vs the aforementioned IM also down to seconds on his time and I have to say I was puzzled as to the point of such futility.
Other Brain also played the Nimzo as Black in that game... against the author of "Challenging the Nimzo-Indian"!!
Brilliant...
Remember though, his first brain is from Rhode Island.
-Matt
What do they do in Rhode Island?
It ain't chess...
Commenting by HaloScan
