chess corner

Chess Corner

Grant and you will uncover!
Wild name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
jollylolly 65 ( +1 | -1 )
Chess is not only about winning I know this title may be considered by some to be misleading, but I get so frustrated with players, in Blitz Chess especially, who as soon as they make a mistake and lose their queen, or rook, resign or abandon the game. If players are only there to win, they need to accept a resignation goes down as a loss.
Fighting back and perhaps winning is so much more satisfying than lying down and playing dead at the first little hiccup.
Perhaps they may be just "practising their openings", but should at least have the coutesy to allow their opponent to "practise their end game".
OK, I'm off my soap box now.
jstack 93 ( +1 | -1 )
Agree for a different reason I agree chess is not only about winning but I fail to see the benefit of continuing a game down a queen or a rook without any compensation whatsoever. I don't think this kind of mistake could be considered a hiccup. Even if you do win it won't be because you did something brilliant. More likely it will be because your opponent stopped thinking, did not make a plan, and stopped concentrating at all.
--------Personally winning by taking advantage of my opponents serious blunders brings me no satisfaction at all. Rather, when I play a game make a good plan execute the plan to the best of my ability seeing all the tactics...this brings me satisfaction. I may still lose but if I play at the top of my ability I am happy. Also, it is this type of game that is most worthy of analysis...especially if your opponent also does not make any obvious mistakes. Its easier to learn something useful from the game if obvious mistakes are not made.
bonsai 22 ( +1 | -1 )
Somehow I think you won't be able to "practise your end game" very well if you are a queen up. Closer situations (e.g. rook endgame with an extra pawn - or two) are much more interesting and worthy of being practiced.
wulebgr 12 ( +1 | -1 )
If you need to practice such basics as winning when a queen ahead, buy some chess software and practice against that.
i_play_slowly 178 ( +1 | -1 )
Resignation Etiquette jollylolly, I was going to refer you to the thread "Resignation Etiquette" because the views of its author seemed so much like your own, then I noticed that you were the author of both threads! Apparently the dissenting voices in your previous thread have done little to persuade you.
However, when the situation is reversed--when your opponent is leading by a rook and you have no compensation for it--do you really owe it to him to prolong your humiliation? I am reminded of a scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" in which the enemy knight has lost his limbs, one by one, during a sword fight. Finally, his head is left lying on the ground, shouting, "Come back and fight, you coward! I'll bite your knee cap off!" Anyone who wants to continue combat in such a situation makes himself look similarly absurd. Assuming that you wouldn't want to be a laughingstock, why expect it of your opponent?
Chess, of course, is based on the ancient art of warfare. Traditionally, when a combatant offered his sword, the opponent could accept the surrender, or continue the aggression. Option one led to peace. Option two led to a massacre. History seems to smile more kindly on victors who have chosen option one. I have never heard anybody suggest that Lee cheated Grant of his victory, or that Grant should have refused Lee's offer to surrender. They were noble men. Absurdity or nobility--the choice is yours.
Finally, I admit the merit of Larry Evans' epigram, "The qualities I most admire in a chess game are precision, beauty and fighting spirit." Usually, however, if one is down a rook or queen, precision and beauty have already gone out the window. When a glass blower mars his work, he trashes it and starts another.
ccmcacollister 79 ( +1 | -1 )
jollylolly Your opponents are simply acknowleging that you should win. Resignation is not a means of avoiding a "real loss" like some players seem to feel taking a timeout does. Rather it is THE most common and accepted means by which a defeat is acknowledged, in upper echelons. A GM will almost never play till mated. (If ever they have, it must no doubt be due to some reason beyond the board. Or perhaps so impressed with some combination. But I've not seen a GM get mated outisde a time scramble. Actually havent seen it then either, but have seen mate in two missed.) by resigning they are simply saying that they do believe you have the skill needed to win that game in that situation. It is complementary, if anything.
mate_you_in_fifty 40 ( +1 | -1 )
difference there is a difference between 'resigning' and 'abandoning' the game in online blitz. The former is perfectly acceptable and is respectful and easy on both you and the opponent. The latter is definitely annoying especially on those sites where you have to wait a certain amount of time before the system recognizes that your opponent has forfeited. However that is Internet etiquette, not chess etiquette.
invincible1 5 ( +1 | -1 )
Agree... Its not the Winning that matters.. its the taking Apart... ;-).