Both behaviors are technically unsportsmanlike. Not resigning with King alone vs several other pieces is unsportsmanlike. Promoting all your pieces in retaliation in unsportsmanlike.
One of them did unsportsmanlike behavior first, so they can't complain if they get it back.
What the OP imagines his opponent is thinking: "Gee, this guy is really punishing me for not resigning. I'm so humiliated! I've certainly learned my lesson!"
What the opponent is actually thinking: "What's wrong with this imbecile? Doesn't he even know how to checkmate?"
Truth is man, it just makes BOTH of you wrong. Your opponent is wrong for not resigning, but yes, YOU are still wrong for just toying around
Truth is man, it just makes BOTH of you wrong. Your opponent is wrong for not resigning, but yes, YOU are still wrong for just toying around
Right, but if you refuse to resign, you can't complain when your opponent does this to you.
"Right, but if you refuse to resign, you can't complain when your opponent does this to you."
They're not complaining, they're laughing at you
You're stalling games, they are just playing. If you're winning, then it is up to you prove it and checkmate them. I've came back to win or even draw hopelessly loss positions - so I only resign when I feel like the opponent *will* mate me.
All that to say, your opponent is playing chess and you're being unsportsmanlike.
You're stalling games, they are just playing. If you're winning, then it is up to you prove it and checkmate them. I've came back to win or even draw hopelessly loss positions - so I only resign when I feel like the opponent *will* mate me.
All that to say, your opponent is playing chess and you're being unsportsmanlike.
Yes, the opponent with one king locked on half the board by my protected rook while I have 3 pawns promoting is "playing chess" and not stalling games.
Do I understand this correctly?
You punish them for wasting your time - by wasting your time promoting everything to knights instead of checkmating them?
It's fun to play with 5 horses and a queen vs a king, so for me the payback portion isn't really a waste of time.
What the OP imagines his opponent is thinking: "Gee, this guy is really punishing me for not resigning. I'm so humiliated! I've certainly learned my lesson!"
What the opponent is actually thinking: "What's wrong with this imbecile? Doesn't he even know how to checkmate?"
Well, they're wrong. And one day they'll learn and have one of those moments we all have in life where a light bulb goes off and you view the past differently.
You're stalling games, they are just playing. If you're winning, then it is up to you prove it and checkmate them. I've came back to win or even draw hopelessly loss positions - so I only resign when I feel like the opponent *will* mate me.
All that to say, your opponent is playing chess and you're being unsportsmanlike.
Yes, the opponent with one king locked on half the board by my protected rook while I have 3 pawns promoting is "playing chess" and not stalling games.
Right. People give blanket statements about why they don't resign, as if every position is the same and they can all result in stalemate. Some of the boards I create are so comical. Like 4 pawns one move from promotion, if any of them promote to queen or rook, it's checkmate.
That position is lost. It's not covered under the logic one uses when they don't resign when they are simply down a lot of material.
I've been an arbiter at a lot of scholastic tournaments and on the weaker boards a general rule of thumb is K+Q vs K is a draw half the time and K+Q+Q vs K is a draw 90% of the time (much higher chance to stalemate).
At my current ~1900 rating level I will play on against others until there are no more tricks, traps, complications or swindles left. I've drawn or won a significant minority of lost games.
As far as the types of games you've cited go, those I will resign. As an arbiter I've seen a number of high school team competitions (fixed board teams similar to the US Amateur Team or the Olympiad) and there can be some brutal mismatches on board one is some matches. When a player refuses to resign the opponent will sometimes start (safely) promoting knight after knight. The weaker player's coach will sometimes come up to me with a complaint about how the opponent is being cruel by prolonging the agony and a standard response from many stronger arbiters is that the agony can be ended immediately by resigning so it is not merely the opponent that is prolonging it (interestingly enough, it is generally the coach that complains, not the player).
At larger tournaments there are more arbiters required and sometimes the less experienced arbiters will want to take action against the knight promoter (this can also happen at smaller tournaments where the chief arbiter is not the most experienced). In a tournament it is generally a safer option to play the quick mate and not risk having an arbiter decide to penalize you for unsportsmanlike conduct.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/58316475513
Actually, I confused the Bishop fork with another game.
This was the game. He premoved when he executed the Rook check, assuming I would interpose with the Queen rather than capture, and went from won to lost.
Then he bi*ches about my not resigning and I reported him for calling me things I cannot repeat on here.
Point is, it is not my job to resign, and I almost never do in bullet ot blitz - Correspondence I will. Standard time controls over the board I will.
You fail a won position, don't blame it in him for not resigning!
I reported him - hope he is muted for a long time!
I thought the rook check was normal and it was the queen check that was a premove, assuming Kd6 instead of Qxe7.
What you do is fair. They are trying to waste your time so you just take advantage of it to have some fun. Can you imagine playing a daily game vs someone like that. It's insufferable.
When someone doesn't resign a hopelessly lost position, I like to mess with them by promoting everything (usually to horses) and making a bunch of joke moves before finally delivering checkmate. They are wasting time and dragging out the game by not resigning so I do the same to them.
I don't ever delay games or stall in any other situation. So I have to assume my doing that caused people to report me and made me get the message below. I'm wondering if this is something that is actually against the rules and they would suspend or ban my account for, if I keep doing it.
Dear 22289d
We’ve been receiving reports of stalling and disconnecting in your games. We want to remind you that this does violate our Good Sportsmanship policy.
We would ask you resign or play on in the future in order to make Chess.com a more friendly place to play!
Thank you,
Chess.com Support
[email protected]
The difference is they are playing for a stalemate whereas you are prolonging a game that you could finish sooner.
1.I think it doesn't take long to checkmate if it's hopeless situation and does not require energy.
2. What's the point-there are probably hundreds of thousands who do that and you can't teach them all
3. some have genuinely good intentions, they want to learn, that is they might have any reasons in doing that. (see blog https://www.chess.com/blog/Marziotta/win-against-a-strong-opponent )
(I don't like those situations either.)
Because it's the way I like to play chess. It's fun to me.
My question is whether it's actually against the rules and I'm going to get banned if I don't stop.
yes if you can win on move 10 but pointlessly move 50 times after that you are stalling.
That 25% does not apply to every single situation. For example, if you're playing against me, and I have you in a corner where your only moves are back and forth between two squares. And my king is two squares from your king. And my queen is sitting right there, so all I have to do is deliver the knockout blow and the game is over. And I'm promoting pawns and playing with horsies. That's not a 25% stalemate situation. That's a 0% stalemate situation. Yet they still don't resign. Because they saw on some forum somewhere to never resign. And they have no ability to use their own brain and realize I'm playing with horsies just to make fun of them.
exactly. you could screw up but they can't. That is why they have a case for not resigning but you don't have a case for playing on.
What the OP imagines his opponent is thinking: "Gee, this guy is really punishing me for not resigning. I'm so humiliated! I've certainly learned my lesson!"
What the opponent is actually thinking: "What's wrong with this imbecile? Doesn't he even know how to checkmate?"
either that or I have nothing to lose by playing on but he may screw up
When someone doesn't resign a hopelessly lost position, I like to mess with them by promoting everything (usually to horses) and making a bunch of joke moves before finally delivering checkmate. They are wasting time and dragging out the game by not resigning so I do the same to them.
I don't ever delay games or stall in any other situation. So I have to assume my doing that caused people to report me and made me get the message below. I'm wondering if this is something that is actually against the rules and they would suspend or ban my account for, if I keep doing it.
Dear 22289d
We’ve been receiving reports of stalling and disconnecting in your games. We want to remind you that this does violate our Good Sportsmanship policy.
We would ask you resign or play on in the future in order to make Chess.com a more friendly place to play!
Thank you,
Chess.com Support
[email protected]
The difference is they are playing for a stalemate whereas you are prolonging a game that you could finish sooner.
If they are truly playing for a stalemate, they should be happy to get more chances and time to do so. And they can always resign as soon as they think it becomes impossible.
Yeah,....he's using an old "Jaws" meme.