1+ To 16#s post, that's the most annoying thing I have encountered so far, I usually just leave the computer and come back when they start playing again.
Having played many Anon games, I can confirm that many filthy players who spam draw/add time/curse/rage/ the whole match have in fact been from the USA. I do not mean to label all americans as such but speaking from experiance I have yet to run into a rude player from elsehwhere.
Having lived in USA for 6 years, I really think some of the rude behaviour stems from knowing that there is a high probability that the player on the other side speaks English. Futhermore when there is a written right to Freedom of Speech combined with USA's history of invasions, wars, captures, bombings, all without any reprecussions from the ICC or the International Community. There may exits feelings of superiority and entitlement to ruin this site for others.
I would like to add though I have met some awesome americans as well, sadly though,they are rare gems.
As for OP's question: there is no exact rule that states one must resign. Knowing when you are losing and there is no chance mostly comes from exp. If you are the player in the winning position then it is up to you to wrap it up quickly. It is no good to miss several mates than bitch about the other player not resigning. Freindly Greetings.
Having lived in USA for 6 years, I really think some of the rude behaviour stems from knowing that there is a high probability that the player on the other side speaks English. Futhermore when there is a written right to Freedom of Speech combined with USA's history of invasions, wars, captures, bombings, all without any reprecussions from the ICC or the International Community. There may exits feelings of superiority and entitlement to ruin this site for others.
I would like to add though I have met some awesome americans as well, sadly though,they are rare gems.
As for OP's question: there is no exact rule that states one must resign. Knowing when you are losing and there is no chance mostly comes from exp. If you are the player in the winning position then it is up to you to wrap it up quickly. It is no good to miss several mates than bitch about the other player not resigning. Freindly Greetings.
"Having played many Anon games, I can confirm that many filthy players who spam draw/add time/curse/rage/ the whole match have in fact been from the USA"
This is a ridiculous comment. You can "confirm" it?
I'd expect someone who calls themselves a mathematician to realise just how absurdly unscientific and worthless your observation is. Your bias is bleeding through. 300 million people and you can tell us about all but a few of them based on your arbitrary guesses about your chess opponents. It's embarrassing.
This is a ridiculous comment. You can "confirm" it?
I'd expect someone who calls themselves a mathematician to realise just how absurdly unscientific and worthless your observation is. Your bias is bleeding through. 300 million people and you can tell us about all but a few of them based on your arbitrary guesses about your chess opponents. It's embarrassing.
If anybody wants to be my friend add me please, I like to chat with other players please
@Little_Boy_Tables Actually according to USCF, about 35 to 40 million play chess. Of that, it is safe to assume that a small percentage play here. He never said all 300 million. In fact, it seems he tried his best to avoid rounding us up as a whole.
He spoke entirely from his experiance which seems unlucky to say the least. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Personally, I find someone who is vocally against America, a refreshing sight.
He spoke entirely from his experiance which seems unlucky to say the least. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Personally, I find someone who is vocally against America, a refreshing sight.
I think it depends on a persons mood. Sometimes it can be nice being a lot of material up and with no pressure punishing the enemy in a completely won game. Other times ... The ego is thinking , does he think I cannot beat him from this position, I feel insulted and now I must insult them back ....
Most of the time I enjoy it and would prefer if they did not resign....other times (linking this to another thread) I will promote lots of pawns and have a position so dominating that their adrenaline wears off and they see its time to resign.
Its all fun, whiners will always whine and trolls will always troll, best to try and always have fun is my suggestion.
Most of the time I enjoy it and would prefer if they did not resign....other times (linking this to another thread) I will promote lots of pawns and have a position so dominating that their adrenaline wears off and they see its time to resign.
Its all fun, whiners will always whine and trolls will always troll, best to try and always have fun is my suggestion.
@iTroll: I suggest reading my comment and the comment to which I responded again. Nothing about it was a generalisation of all chess players.
Also, "this is my opinion" and "I can confirm something as fact" are nothing at all similar. He said the latter.
Also, "this is my opinion" and "I can confirm something as fact" are nothing at all similar. He said the latter.
Games have end goals.
Maybe a chess variant called «Short Game» would be nice for the players that do not want to finish a game. Maybe some players only want to play the opening, while others will resign in the middle game and others want to see the end game.
Example «Short (Casual) Game» ends after (10), (15) or (20) moves, results are automatically analysed by engine and the winner is declared by the analysis engine arbiter.
I play with intentions to equalise first (draw) and then win if possible. What makes me happy is making it hard for my opponent to win. I take no pleasure in winning a weaker player.
I like it when a weaker player tries to make it hard for me to win the game, even if they play it out until the end. It just proves to them that I know how to checkmate. It also helps me appreciate endgame patterns. Having an end game repertoire helps use foresee the horizon.
With all the imbalances created by the pawn structures, like the stonewall, it is easy to understand that all the captured material will not give a guaranteed win, especially if you cannot escape a perpetual check or enter pieces into your opponents fortress.
If the horizon is not good and you want to play another match in the present tournament, it would be best to resign. The amount of games won (the standings) in these tournaments is what counts to be first.
If you are going to practice, than play games with a slower time control which include increments and do not resign to learn everything about the game.
Test your rating in tournaments and remember to resign a game that has a bad horizon, especially if you want to win these types of tournaments.
A passionate chess player like me, visions a probable horizon and aims for it. Therefore, players like me usually do not resign until the horizon is hopeless to draw. I blunder when I have tunnel vision. A horizon is not a tunnel but is more of a wide future overview of the chessboard.
Example: If after a material imbalance, you vision the exchange of all the pieces equally, what will remain for the end game? The next question remaining: Should you resign with that vision or try to change that horizon? A try to change, will lead players to play on.
In blitz, I often find myselve in a lost position. Is it ethical to play on because my opponent will lose on time? Maybe it is part of the game to take into account the clock, but I beleive ratings should have a different K-Factor when we win by the clock.
A glance at some of my chess sportsman etiquettes:
Experts and above should resign clearly lost positions; Beginners should play to the end.
If you understand why chess uses a clock, then use increments when required. Incremental time permits us time to write, move pieces and finish winning games or resign lost games.
Thanks to all, for the enjoyable chess challenges.
Maybe a chess variant called «Short Game» would be nice for the players that do not want to finish a game. Maybe some players only want to play the opening, while others will resign in the middle game and others want to see the end game.
Example «Short (Casual) Game» ends after (10), (15) or (20) moves, results are automatically analysed by engine and the winner is declared by the analysis engine arbiter.
I play with intentions to equalise first (draw) and then win if possible. What makes me happy is making it hard for my opponent to win. I take no pleasure in winning a weaker player.
I like it when a weaker player tries to make it hard for me to win the game, even if they play it out until the end. It just proves to them that I know how to checkmate. It also helps me appreciate endgame patterns. Having an end game repertoire helps use foresee the horizon.
With all the imbalances created by the pawn structures, like the stonewall, it is easy to understand that all the captured material will not give a guaranteed win, especially if you cannot escape a perpetual check or enter pieces into your opponents fortress.
If the horizon is not good and you want to play another match in the present tournament, it would be best to resign. The amount of games won (the standings) in these tournaments is what counts to be first.
If you are going to practice, than play games with a slower time control which include increments and do not resign to learn everything about the game.
Test your rating in tournaments and remember to resign a game that has a bad horizon, especially if you want to win these types of tournaments.
A passionate chess player like me, visions a probable horizon and aims for it. Therefore, players like me usually do not resign until the horizon is hopeless to draw. I blunder when I have tunnel vision. A horizon is not a tunnel but is more of a wide future overview of the chessboard.
Example: If after a material imbalance, you vision the exchange of all the pieces equally, what will remain for the end game? The next question remaining: Should you resign with that vision or try to change that horizon? A try to change, will lead players to play on.
In blitz, I often find myselve in a lost position. Is it ethical to play on because my opponent will lose on time? Maybe it is part of the game to take into account the clock, but I beleive ratings should have a different K-Factor when we win by the clock.
A glance at some of my chess sportsman etiquettes:
Experts and above should resign clearly lost positions; Beginners should play to the end.
If you understand why chess uses a clock, then use increments when required. Incremental time permits us time to write, move pieces and finish winning games or resign lost games.
Thanks to all, for the enjoyable chess challenges.
"Maybe a chess variant called «Short Game» would be nice for the players that do not want to finish a game. Maybe some players only want to play the opening, while others will resign in the middle game and others want to see the end game.
Example «Short (Casual) Game» ends after (10), (15) or (20) moves, results are automatically analysed by engine and the winner is declared by the analysis engine arbiter."
This is nothing at all similar to a player resigning a position they think is lost.
It is literally impossible to play a game of chess without finishing it. When someone resigns, the game is finished.
Example «Short (Casual) Game» ends after (10), (15) or (20) moves, results are automatically analysed by engine and the winner is declared by the analysis engine arbiter."
This is nothing at all similar to a player resigning a position they think is lost.
It is literally impossible to play a game of chess without finishing it. When someone resigns, the game is finished.
Bobby, it's actually on a slight upward trend since 1970, coincidentally around the time of the other Bobby:
http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/chess-checkmates-over-time.png
http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/chess-checkmates-over-time.png
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.