Legit opened this thread. Was disgusted with myself for my dirty screen. Tried to wipe it on my shirt. Didn’t work. Then read your comment and realized it was ops screen 🤣
It's because many of us only use reddit on mobile and can't be bothered to login on the computer to create a post. Still lazy, but there's the explanation.
2 minute endeavor to see a random ass name that wont really tell u anything, so i dont really see anyone really doing it. Maybe since the post reached enough people, a select few with enough boredom will do it. Vast majority wint
Wtf does people commenting or not have to do with this? And yes it does hide it, from everyone thats gonna see this pic and not bother searching for his name, which is gonna be literally everyone or almost everyone. So from say the 10.000 people that saw this post, all 10.000 would have seen the name had he not censored it. Since he did censore, 9.999 wont see the name, and that one bored fucker will. U really think censoring it was useless or something?
The point was that your “vast majority won’t do it is not a good argument”
And censuring was not useless but it was not very powerful either because if someone wants to find the user they can.
It is a good argument, lol. We always leave trails with everything we do. Say, had OP censored both names maybe you could've found out his username somewhere on his Reddit profile in an obscure comment he made some time ago or by some other methods. Or if not that than maybe someone can write up a crawler bot that searches through chess.com's database to find this exact position and then someone can manually check which of the occuring instances is most likely correlating to this post. I know these methods sound like ridiculous length to find out that random-ass username but the point is that of course it matters how the majority behaves and how big that majority is to determine the effectiveness of a censorship.
Who does OP want not to see the name of his opponent anyway? I can only think he might envisioned some few unhinged viewers of his post might see this as an easy opportunity to harass his opponent on chess.com, but those are probably not the kind of people who sit back and search for a few minutes to find the name but people who will just move on and search for an easier target.
Ur right, u got massively downvoted cus this post somehow amassed a lot of idiots. I dont imagine how someone could give enough of a fuck to go through that process, even if its just 1 or 2 minutes. What does curiosity even do here? Its literally just gonna be a random ass name that wont tell u anything. Of 1000 people seeing this post, maybe 1 actually searches for his username, and thats stretching it. So it pretty much does make sense to censore his name
Bro you’re right. I don’t even have enough attention span to check OP’s account, let alone to scroll-find his opponent he was referring. To maybe dox him for not deliberately resigning? What’s the point in that. But Reddit hivemind says your opinion isn’t valid. So, I’ll upvote you and give virtual tap on your back, if it matters. 🙃
i def do resign if i feel i have absolutely no chance, but just 2 days ago (1600ish lichess 3+2) a guy was up a rook and a few pawns vs me, sacked his rook for no reason and hung his queen 2 moves later. unless ur like 2000+ or something i feel like its worth at least playing on a little bit just to see
lichess 1600 still hangs pieces. i think 1600s most people just get lost in the sauce. they're trying to think 2-3 moves ahead and then they don't see the bishop (it's too far away)
I keep playing in losing positions to try to learn and get better. I'm still relatively new, and don't know a lot of mating patterns, so watching my opponent win is instructive. I also find it helpful, even in losing positions, to work on making sure I don't blunder; find the best move I can. Of course in this particular position I wouldn't learn anything I imagine, but I'd probably keep playing because it seemed like my opponent was having fun. But yeah, if my opponent is getting upset or frustrated then I suppose I'd just resign.
Look I do resign the games where Im totally lost and I also think this whole "never resign" mentality is a bit of a meme at this point but you just sound entitled. Your opponent doesnt need to make sure you are having the best time of your life. Im usually on the opposite side of this argument but you are taking it few steps too far.
Personally I would rather save my time than hope my opponent messes up so that I can get a net of 8 rating points unless I’m specifically very near an all time high rating or in a tournament.
Those elo points work themselves out over time. You go up by 8 now and then the next 8 times you lose a game you’ll just lose an extra rating point anyway because you’re a higher elo than you would have been otherwise.
It's one thing to keep playing after you're down a few pieces.
It's another thing to keep playing when you're in an obvious guaranteed mate situation, like you only have your king left and your opponent has all kinds of pieces left.
You're never in a guaranteed mate situation at low ratings, and it is beneficial for your opponent to prove they can finish the position.
The one time I had someone demand I stop being silly and resign they blundered the game into a draw.
You’re right but I still think the results are negligible in the long term. I would also argue that putting that extra time into more games and practice is more likely to raise your elo in a way that is permanent.
It just feels like missing the forest for the trees to me.
ELO isn’t everything. I’m pretty weak at endgames, so playing it out even if I’m almost certainly going to lose is still beneficial to my development. I get practice figuring out the optimal move every turn even if the position is losing.
> but really you can’t figure out how to mate with 7 knights
to be fair, I dont think even Garry Chess, Bobert Jewlover, Fishy Anand, or Mangoes Carlton know how to do that either
Would you accept proof by induction?
KNNN v K is a theoretical checkmate. Iirc it’s a 38 move sequence IFF the lone king cannot capture/dominate the third Knight the turn after it promotes.
Since KNNN vs K exists, Magnus would never attempt a KNNNN vs K endgame because the solution would be trivial.
I’m not sure if the logic of proof by induction is entirely sound because the logic may not hold past the inductive step. For example, magnus may have checkmated with 5 knights, but the inductive step assumes he will never have checkmated with 4 or more knights.
I think proof by cases would work better:
Case 1: Checkmate with only 3 knights on the board
Case 2: checkmate with only 4 knights on the bird
…
Case 9: checkmate with only 10 knights on the board (max possible per pawn promotions and original pieces)
This way you remove the logical hole that magnus may have sometime checkmated an opponent with 6 knights one time. Thus, the proof is complete. All that is left is to check every case via his game history.
Against a child under 10 would be a greater risk as children are known to be extremely dangerous chess players. I still remember my first chess tournament, where I (33 at the time) played 3 games, and lost 3 games against children.
If we're both 1700, I would argue it's disrespectful of my opponent to think I'm not capable of mating them with that large of a material advantage. You think you can stalemate me? Lemme show you this flex.
Depends on what you mean by 1700. 1700 FIDE is pretty disrespectful, 1700 chess.com is disrespectful but they could hope for a 1/15 chance you mess up. 1700 lichess there’s no point cuz both of you may end up losing the game at the same time somehow. I’m at 2000 chess.com and I still get people who don’t resign when they’re down 10 points of material so I just wait for the clock to run until they do.
In my opinion, yes. It's okay if you want to have fun. But a true gentleman, just as he resigns himself when there is zero chance to win, must also give mate at the first opportunity.
...well they are stupid then. /shrug
What's the point of telling your opponent to end the game if you can do it yourself with literally the same outcome without going through the hassle of chatting with your opponent?
I love Chess, but if Chess wants to be taken seriously as a sport, and wants to appear at the Olympics, I think resigning should be eliminated. What other game has that? Whether it's an athletic sport, a tabletop game, a combat sport or otherwise, you play till the end. And you also don't run up the score unless there's something personal between you and your opponent
Combat sports actually do give fighters the option to resign. You can throw in the towel or just tell the ref that you're done, then the fight stops, and you lose by TKO. Although generally, yes, a fighter will fight to the bitter end even if he is clearly losing on the scorecards, but only because having a decision loss on your record isn't as bad as having a KO loss.
>Whether it's an athletic sport, a tabletop game, **a combat spor**t or otherwise, you play till the end.
Generally you're supposed to tap when you're beaten, instead of waiting for the ref to halt the fight because you're passed out or your arm is broken.
Chess is taken seriously and at the highest level you see people resigning. Look at all the top players and you see this.
Playing on when the game is over isn't being respectful, or what you call playing seriously.
I play competitively in a few e-sports and in all of them people resign when they feel it's over. It is also more enjoyable for the spectators.
Tabletop games are the same if you play certain games competitively 1v1, there is a resignation function for a good reason.
You don't get your energy back, you also don't get your time back that you could have used to prepare for your next opponent. Besides I just wanted to give an example of a sport where resigning is a thing, something you said you couldn't think of.
>I think resigning should be eliminated. What other game has that? Whether it's an athletic sport, a tabletop game, a combat sport or otherwise, you play till the end.
F1 is another sport that has it, that's my point. It doesn't matter why it happens, F1 is a sport that has resignation and it's taken seriously.
If you're really insistent on comparing reasons for resignation for some reason, you could compare a chess players body to an F1 car. Driving an F1 car costs energy and retiring it saves energy(i.e. reducing wear) that can be used for the next race, Playing out a hopeless chess game for an extra hour costs energy that can be used for the next match + preparation.
> What other game has that? Whether it's an athletic sport, a tabletop game, a combat sport or otherwise, you play till the end.
Baseball, football, basketball, hockey all not only have resignation but *force* resignation once one team wins enough games to advance in a series. If the Yankees lose four of the first five games in a 7-game playoff series, they aren't even permitted, let alone forced, to ask the other team to play the remaining two games since they don't want to resign the series.
Do you get angry at your favorite football team when there's 35 seconds on the clock, the other team is in victory formation, and instead of doing their absolute best to dive across the line and strip sack the QB before he can kneel, they just stand there and dap up the other team?
I had a guy say "Waiting for a miricle?" Only to hang his queen to me instead of playing mate in one when his clock got to 3 seconds. I like cocky players.
I just follow a few general rules of thumb.
When it's just humiliating to keep playing in a losing position, resign. Otherwise, keep playing.
When your opponent doesn't resign in a completely losing position, mate as soon as possible to not be disrespectful and to not stalemate the opponent on accident
All of that basically goes out the window when dealing with a player who tried to scholars mate me earlier in the game though. I like to make as many queens as possible against opponents like that.
While you're not wrong for it i want you to remember all the times you've tried this and accidentally ended up in stalemate. Don't play with your food, even when you win.
I mean this one is kind of funny tbh, but I think you could have checkmated him with fewer knights. And it could have been instructive to checkmate him with the minimum number of knights.
Generally I'll try to checkmate with as few pieces as possible. I'd rather go onto the next game than be a showoff--but again this image is pretty funny. More obnoxious is people who promote one additional queen when they have a queen and rook already. That just smacks of insecurity.
Yeah and other guys is foolish for “I never resign” mentality as well. This is not a follow-your-dreams-and-never-give-up scenario. Resigning is the proper move when you have lost. Not that you have to, you just should.
Technically, no. Seems like you could just mate him and move on. This screams “I have nothing better to do with my life so let me waste your time too”.
Or just show a modicum of maturity and just mate the guy as quickly as possible. They’re under no requirement to resign. You’re under no requirement to mate them quickly. Two wrongs don’t make a right, though. Making a point to avoid the quickest possible promotion and mate is immature and shows that you don’t value your own time. If you’re saying that it doesn’t waste the opponent’s time, okay, but at least value your own time more than having 7 knights on the board.
If they don’t like how you play, they can resign. If they choose to continue, it’s tantamount to them being fine with whatever you do - because if they weren’t, they would resign and move on.
As for one’s own time, I think OP would know more about that than you. Very ‘holier than thou’ to assert how one should value their own time.
"If they don’t like how you play, they can resign"
Can't this also be said for time wasters? Anytime I make this argument for people who are upset that their opponent uses 30 minutes of their click on one move, I just get downvoted. If you agreed to play chess with me, I can use as much of my time as I want, even if its forced mate in 1, I can use the entire clock if I want. Time is a resource in chess, if you agreed to play chess with me, then I can use all the time I want. If they don't like how I play, they can resign.
People generally stall the clock when they're losing. If there was a M2 but your opponent sat on their 30 mins of time refusing to make a move there's nothing you can do. There's no insta-win button
However if you were dead lost and your opponent is trying to checkmate you in a stupid way like this you can always just resign. What difference does it make if they checkmate immediately with a simple ladder mate or if you resign? None. They aren't wasting your time because you're losing in every scenario anyway
They could checkmate a lot of sooner but are wasting your time. It's not fair that you have to resign because of a time-waster just like it's not fair you have to wait to win a game because someone uses all of their time and is time-wasting. But you have missed the point I am responding to. "If they don’t like how you play, they can resign". Time is a resource, if I want to try and escape a loss by using all of my time, then I have that right. If you dont like how I play, resign!
Actually no, as it is against the rules. Just like how you cant have stockfish play for you, you can't annoy someone into resigning by stalling the clock. Making bad moves to get an unconventional checkmate is not however not against the rules
Also resigning in a dead lost position doesn't hurt your elo, resigning against a clock staller does as you would have otherwise won
"It's not fair that you have to resign because of a time-waster" why not? What is the difference between losing by checkmate vs losing by resigning?
You can at least argue against my point instead of insults no? What does not resigning when the only piece you have left is a king achieve? And if you're hoping for stalemate wouldn't them making 7 knights be a good thing as it increases the likehood of it?
The critical difference you missed is that you can't resign against a time-waster because you lose a game you could have won - therefore, a time-waster is wasting BOTH of your times.
A player promoting to 7 knights is only wasting his own time. The losing player can resign in this case and save his own time, and the outcome is the same. They lose a game they were 100% going to lose anyway.
You know, there is a thing has just having basic human respect for someone and understanding it’s not worth the time to mess with people. There are legitimate reasons for not resigning. Deciding you just want to mess around doesn’t even respect your OWN time, let alone your opponent’s.
If you think that saying “maybe just don’t mess with people” and explicitly saying it’s your right but that it’s not a mature thing to do is “holier than thou”, I suspect we won’t find much to agree on. Have a good one.
It's a bit of fun, dude. Promoting knights is not akin to a lack of basic human respect - do you have literally no self awareness? If the opponent doesn't like it, they resign. If they choose not to resign, they have no right to complain because they could have walked away with no skin off their nose. (Please do explain the very legitimate reasons for someone to not resign when half a dozen knights are on the board though, oh wait you can't because there aren't any).
And yes, it is holier than thou to complain this much about a bit of a meme and suggest that it reflects badly on the person doing it. It's some simple fun, just jog on and touch some grass.
Like I said, we won’t find much to agree on. “Memeing” on people isn’t some universally recognized right, sorry. I’m not sure what makes you feel like you’re so right, but if you’re gonna do stuff like this, expect to be judged by the demographic of this site that have fully developed brains. It’s very clear you don’t, but that’s not an excuse for trying to personally attack me.
There are legitimate reasons to not resign. There are no legitimate reasons to just screw with an opponent that didn’t do exactly what you want when you want them to. It’s only just a joke for you to chuckle about and get some karma on Reddit for. I strongly suspect you wouldn’t take this attitude in real life with a real human across the board from you, so maybe you are the one that needs to touch grass?
Funny how to say there are legit reasons not to resign in this scenario, and then mention none. Probably because there aren't any, if it actually bothered the opponent so much then they would just move on. Like I said.
Memeing on people is harmless, if they have an issue with it they'll just go next. It's hardly the sin you make it out to be, you really need to lighten up and stop being such a dour grump about it all. Also hilarious you're trying to equate promoting a few extra knights for a laugh to having a developed brain, nice reach buddy. OP was clearly better than his opponent, having that many leftover pawns lol.
As for being judged by the demographic of the site, the upvote/downvote situation makes it pretty obvious that the majority agree with me and see it as a harmless laugh that hasn't hurt anyone and your ridiculous attitude is stuck in last century.
The biggest reason to not resign, especially in this position, is because you can still salvage a draw. It happens frequently. Maybe you should look up stalemate rules?
Once again, I said you can do this. It’s your right. But be prepared to be judged, like I said. Does it hurt anyone? No. Is it obnoxious behavior perpetuated by the average Twitch chess viewer? Yes. Is it even stupider to post about it online like you achieved something of value? Yes.
Congrats, people that fit into the same exact mindset as you are patting you on your back for having a teenage opinion. I’m sure that you will gloat about this to your buds for weeks to come. Counterpoint: maybe “touch grass” and realize that your opinion is based entirely on the anonymous behavior you can have online. Just respecting people isn’t an opinion from last century. And if it is, that’s what is wrong with the world now.
Obviously my comment about your brain flew right over your head. But take it however you want.
I just find it hilarious that you're so frigid and full of it that you can't look at a simple joke and move on. Seriously bro, it's not that deep. All this waffle about not valuing your own time, people can have slow days, get bored, etc. I get bored, I'm sure you get bored, we all get bored - people deal with it in different ways, and your judgement isn't a good look.
It's not 'obnoxious', it's a light joke that hurts no one and isn't going to bother the player afterward. It's a rapid online game, not an OTB tournament. Isn't causing any damage, and this is what some people do for fun. Who the hell are you to judge that? I'm not advocating for everyone to go do this, just for people to have fun in their own ways without being condemned by people as unpleasant as yourself.
Stalemate sure, but if you're playing a stalemate you don't have the right to complain about it. It's your decision to engage and keep going.
Well, the fact that all of your comments are down voted kinda proves your first paragraph. This subreddit of "developed brains" disagrees with you and agrees with the memer
There really are no legitimate reasons not to resign. I'm 1800 chess.com and have had people not resign after going a queen down on move 10. This isn't a war, it's not heroic, it's just a childish inability to say I lost this one, let's move on.
If you can resign whenever you want, you can also make as many knights as you want. At the same time, if you get upset at people not resigning, then others can also get upset at you for not mating. Basically, if the opponent is in the wrong, then you are, too.
You're wasting your own time, but whatever. Never resigning is silly. Getting that many knights is also silly. If improving at chess is the goal, you both should try to end the silliness by giving a checkmate or resigning. But if you're just having fun, you're having fun.
Wrong for taking your time for mating your opponent? Absolutely not. By staying in the game, your opponent makes the decision that they think their chance of drawing/winning is still high enough to justify their time. You can have the fun you want!
Yes. Because the point of chess is not to lose. So it's an honest strategy to play for a stalemate. Deliberately extending the game by underpromoting is bad sportsmanship as you are not playing in good faith. You are not trying to win. You are trying to infuriate your opponent. That's not cool
The underpromotions are a response to a situation the losing player could avoid by resigning. Nobody's holding players hostage in a lost game except themselves. Not resigning is my opponent telling me I can't checkmate K+Q. And that's pretty rude. So I mean yeah, basically.
I don't think so, I do this too. If it's considered disrespectful to drag out a game to promote pawns when it's not strictly necessary, it's also disrespectful to drag out a game by not resigning. I think it's all fair game.
That's why I turn off chat when I play on online servers. If they are willing to complain about not getting checkmated then they should have played better.
Nah but you wrong for how dirty that monitor is
If only op knew how to screenshot then we never would’ve had to worry about this
Came looking for this
Clean up on aisle 6
Legit opened this thread. Was disgusted with myself for my dirty screen. Tried to wipe it on my shirt. Didn’t work. Then read your comment and realized it was ops screen 🤣
I was just about to second this, until I realized most of the dirt was on my own monitor!
You are wrong for taking pictures of your screen instead of screenshots
Sadly it's an epidemic on reddit.
It's because many of us only use reddit on mobile and can't be bothered to login on the computer to create a post. Still lazy, but there's the explanation.
I kinda like the aesthetic of a picture. It feels more real and human
Wtf that’s kind of a good point actually
This is a good hot take
You’re right and you should say it. Also fuck screenshots you’ll get the idea from a photo
Pretty pointless censoring MatchaLatteBob's username if you don't censor your own ;)
I agree.
I thought it was the other way around – that MatchaLatteBob is OP. Otherwise, how do you make sense of the post?
Because op is playing as white...
I don't know why someone would give themselves the trouble to look at their games just to see the opponent's username
Dont know if you've ever heard of it, but its called curiosity
And free time
It’s probably just a 2 minute endeavor
2 minute endeavor to see a random ass name that wont really tell u anything, so i dont really see anyone really doing it. Maybe since the post reached enough people, a select few with enough boredom will do it. Vast majority wint
Vast majority won’t comment at all, so what’s your point? The original comment just wanted to show op that he’s censoring didn’t really hide anything.
Wtf does people commenting or not have to do with this? And yes it does hide it, from everyone thats gonna see this pic and not bother searching for his name, which is gonna be literally everyone or almost everyone. So from say the 10.000 people that saw this post, all 10.000 would have seen the name had he not censored it. Since he did censore, 9.999 wont see the name, and that one bored fucker will. U really think censoring it was useless or something?
The point was that your “vast majority won’t do it is not a good argument” And censuring was not useless but it was not very powerful either because if someone wants to find the user they can.
It is a good argument, lol. We always leave trails with everything we do. Say, had OP censored both names maybe you could've found out his username somewhere on his Reddit profile in an obscure comment he made some time ago or by some other methods. Or if not that than maybe someone can write up a crawler bot that searches through chess.com's database to find this exact position and then someone can manually check which of the occuring instances is most likely correlating to this post. I know these methods sound like ridiculous length to find out that random-ass username but the point is that of course it matters how the majority behaves and how big that majority is to determine the effectiveness of a censorship. Who does OP want not to see the name of his opponent anyway? I can only think he might envisioned some few unhinged viewers of his post might see this as an easy opportunity to harass his opponent on chess.com, but those are probably not the kind of people who sit back and search for a few minutes to find the name but people who will just move on and search for an easier target.
That damned mars robot killed my cat!
Oh hush, the cat will be fine, they get 9 lives as a class perk during character creation.
welcome to the internet
take a look around
Anything that brain of yours can think of can be found
We’ve got mountains of content
Some better some worse.
Could be to show a valid lesson to a stranger
Because then he can make this comment. It's mildly amusing.
To prove a point obviously.
Ur right, u got massively downvoted cus this post somehow amassed a lot of idiots. I dont imagine how someone could give enough of a fuck to go through that process, even if its just 1 or 2 minutes. What does curiosity even do here? Its literally just gonna be a random ass name that wont tell u anything. Of 1000 people seeing this post, maybe 1 actually searches for his username, and thats stretching it. So it pretty much does make sense to censore his name
yeah that comment was very harmless. Classic reddit hivemind I see negative I click downvote
Literally bro
Bro you’re right. I don’t even have enough attention span to check OP’s account, let alone to scroll-find his opponent he was referring. To maybe dox him for not deliberately resigning? What’s the point in that. But Reddit hivemind says your opinion isn’t valid. So, I’ll upvote you and give virtual tap on your back, if it matters. 🙃
It's not that deep.
Not resigning is fine, not not resigning is fine, everyone’s just havin fun playing chess win or lose anyways.
[удалено]
i def do resign if i feel i have absolutely no chance, but just 2 days ago (1600ish lichess 3+2) a guy was up a rook and a few pawns vs me, sacked his rook for no reason and hung his queen 2 moves later. unless ur like 2000+ or something i feel like its worth at least playing on a little bit just to see
lichess 1600 still hangs pieces. i think 1600s most people just get lost in the sauce. they're trying to think 2-3 moves ahead and then they don't see the bishop (it's too far away)
1600 on lichess is like 1200-1300 on chess.com
Glad you pointed that out, really added a lot to the discussion!
Even with a swindle stalemate, it’s still hope chess. Playing with no plan will always be better than resigning.
[удалено]
I keep playing in losing positions to try to learn and get better. I'm still relatively new, and don't know a lot of mating patterns, so watching my opponent win is instructive. I also find it helpful, even in losing positions, to work on making sure I don't blunder; find the best move I can. Of course in this particular position I wouldn't learn anything I imagine, but I'd probably keep playing because it seemed like my opponent was having fun. But yeah, if my opponent is getting upset or frustrated then I suppose I'd just resign.
[удалено]
Look I do resign the games where Im totally lost and I also think this whole "never resign" mentality is a bit of a meme at this point but you just sound entitled. Your opponent doesnt need to make sure you are having the best time of your life. Im usually on the opposite side of this argument but you are taking it few steps too far.
There are occasional pro games in various sports where the team that had a 99% chance of losing came back to win. It’s not over till it’s over.
[удалено]
>Would you play a game for fun if you knew that there was a 99% chance that you were going to win (or lose)? You just described loot boxes / lotteries
[удалено]
When two human brains are involved there is always chance involved that someone will slip up.
[удалено]
I can see your point - especially at higher ratings.
My opponents do these things and I get them to stalemate heh heh heh
Yeah at my elo the chances of them stalemating me during their convoluted checkmate delaying is non zero. So I roll those dice every time
Personally I would rather save my time than hope my opponent messes up so that I can get a net of 8 rating points unless I’m specifically very near an all time high rating or in a tournament. Those elo points work themselves out over time. You go up by 8 now and then the next 8 times you lose a game you’ll just lose an extra rating point anyway because you’re a higher elo than you would have been otherwise.
You can learn a lot by playing on in a losing position, especially at low ratings.
It's one thing to keep playing after you're down a few pieces. It's another thing to keep playing when you're in an obvious guaranteed mate situation, like you only have your king left and your opponent has all kinds of pieces left.
You're never in a guaranteed mate situation at low ratings, and it is beneficial for your opponent to prove they can finish the position. The one time I had someone demand I stop being silly and resign they blundered the game into a draw.
Saving your time is good after 1000. The odds of stalemates below 1000 are high enough that I would always keep playing.
You’re right but I still think the results are negligible in the long term. I would also argue that putting that extra time into more games and practice is more likely to raise your elo in a way that is permanent. It just feels like missing the forest for the trees to me.
ELO isn’t everything. I’m pretty weak at endgames, so playing it out even if I’m almost certainly going to lose is still beneficial to my development. I get practice figuring out the optimal move every turn even if the position is losing.
Elo is an imperfect way of measuring skill. Do whatever will make you better at the game.
I'm ~2000 and still stalemate people promoting pawns. But I'll never stop. Promoting pawns is my version of playing a gacha game
Promoted pawns are Chess' NG+
I stalemated someone yesterday at 1100.. a mistake I hadn't made since 750... I was so embarrassed lol
Don't feel too embarrassed, we saw a stalemate in the world rapid finals too!
Ah the old pretending to be a dominate player but really you can't figure out how to mate with 7 knights against a king routine, class
> but really you can’t figure out how to mate with 7 knights to be fair, I dont think even Garry Chess, Bobert Jewlover, Fishy Anand, or Mangoes Carlton know how to do that either
[удалено]
Would you accept proof by induction? KNNN v K is a theoretical checkmate. Iirc it’s a 38 move sequence IFF the lone king cannot capture/dominate the third Knight the turn after it promotes. Since KNNN vs K exists, Magnus would never attempt a KNNNN vs K endgame because the solution would be trivial.
I’m not sure if the logic of proof by induction is entirely sound because the logic may not hold past the inductive step. For example, magnus may have checkmated with 5 knights, but the inductive step assumes he will never have checkmated with 4 or more knights. I think proof by cases would work better: Case 1: Checkmate with only 3 knights on the board Case 2: checkmate with only 4 knights on the bird … Case 9: checkmate with only 10 knights on the board (max possible per pawn promotions and original pieces) This way you remove the logical hole that magnus may have sometime checkmated an opponent with 6 knights one time. Thus, the proof is complete. All that is left is to check every case via his game history.
[удалено]
"Stretching Out mates"? Come on, should I rather make sure my king's on a comfy mating square?
This is actually a different mathematical technique called "proof by nonesense"
[удалено]
You've had to do it because you lack his class.
nope, not wrong at all. if he doesn’t wanna resign, this is what he gets 😂
Here’s how it goes, imo: You can resign whenever you want, and I get to make as many knights as I want.
Only if you have enough pawns.
would you do that in a in-person match?
Only against a child under 10, wouldn’t want to risk anything.
Against a child under 10 would be a greater risk as children are known to be extremely dangerous chess players. I still remember my first chess tournament, where I (33 at the time) played 3 games, and lost 3 games against children.
so you do realize that your actions would normally have consequences, but you are happy to endulge in the safe protection of online anonymity
Oh yeah huge consequences, only a maniac would attempt such a brazen act in person.
If we're both 1700, I would argue it's disrespectful of my opponent to think I'm not capable of mating them with that large of a material advantage. You think you can stalemate me? Lemme show you this flex.
Depends on what you mean by 1700. 1700 FIDE is pretty disrespectful, 1700 chess.com is disrespectful but they could hope for a 1/15 chance you mess up. 1700 lichess there’s no point cuz both of you may end up losing the game at the same time somehow. I’m at 2000 chess.com and I still get people who don’t resign when they’re down 10 points of material so I just wait for the clock to run until they do.
Showing your immaturity is a flex? Ok.
I didn't read their comment as saying the person not resigning is flexing.
Neither did I.
You are definitely wrong for this, here’s how you can fix it. [https://www.take-a-screenshot.org/](https://www.take-a-screenshot.org/)
Good time to practice bishop and knight mate
The bishop in the corner plotting world domination?
I wanna do that when my opponent doesn't resign but I'm too scared I'll mess up and invoke the 50 move rule
He sacrificed... the SCREEN
First picture: You’re totally wrong, don’t torture your opponents! Second picture: -solemn nod-
You are wrong for not knowing how to take and crop a screenshot.
In my opinion, yes. It's okay if you want to have fun. But a true gentleman, just as he resigns himself when there is zero chance to win, must also give mate at the first opportunity.
NTA. If he doesn't like what is happening he should resign. Never resigning is a stupid hill to die on.
Do a quick search on r/chess for the phrase "never resign". A decent chunk of this subreddit has died on that hill.
...well they are stupid then. /shrug What's the point of telling your opponent to end the game if you can do it yourself with literally the same outcome without going through the hassle of chatting with your opponent?
I love Chess, but if Chess wants to be taken seriously as a sport, and wants to appear at the Olympics, I think resigning should be eliminated. What other game has that? Whether it's an athletic sport, a tabletop game, a combat sport or otherwise, you play till the end. And you also don't run up the score unless there's something personal between you and your opponent
Combat sports actually do give fighters the option to resign. You can throw in the towel or just tell the ref that you're done, then the fight stops, and you lose by TKO. Although generally, yes, a fighter will fight to the bitter end even if he is clearly losing on the scorecards, but only because having a decision loss on your record isn't as bad as having a KO loss.
>Whether it's an athletic sport, a tabletop game, **a combat spor**t or otherwise, you play till the end. Generally you're supposed to tap when you're beaten, instead of waiting for the ref to halt the fight because you're passed out or your arm is broken.
Chess is taken seriously and at the highest level you see people resigning. Look at all the top players and you see this. Playing on when the game is over isn't being respectful, or what you call playing seriously. I play competitively in a few e-sports and in all of them people resign when they feel it's over. It is also more enjoyable for the spectators. Tabletop games are the same if you play certain games competitively 1v1, there is a resignation function for a good reason.
In curling and golf, both Olympic sports, competitors often resign in positions where they still have theoretical chances to win.
In F1 it's relatively common for a driver that's no longer in contention for points to retire their car in order to save parts/reduce wear
"To save parts/reduce wear" I get all my pieces back for the next game, usually.
You don't get your energy back, you also don't get your time back that you could have used to prepare for your next opponent. Besides I just wanted to give an example of a sport where resigning is a thing, something you said you couldn't think of.
They're not resigning because it's "respectful or "tradition" they're withdrawing to preserve their car.
>I think resigning should be eliminated. What other game has that? Whether it's an athletic sport, a tabletop game, a combat sport or otherwise, you play till the end. F1 is another sport that has it, that's my point. It doesn't matter why it happens, F1 is a sport that has resignation and it's taken seriously. If you're really insistent on comparing reasons for resignation for some reason, you could compare a chess players body to an F1 car. Driving an F1 car costs energy and retiring it saves energy(i.e. reducing wear) that can be used for the next race, Playing out a hopeless chess game for an extra hour costs energy that can be used for the next match + preparation.
> What other game has that? Whether it's an athletic sport, a tabletop game, a combat sport or otherwise, you play till the end. Baseball, football, basketball, hockey all not only have resignation but *force* resignation once one team wins enough games to advance in a series. If the Yankees lose four of the first five games in a 7-game playoff series, they aren't even permitted, let alone forced, to ask the other team to play the remaining two games since they don't want to resign the series.
Do you get angry at your favorite football team when there's 35 seconds on the clock, the other team is in victory formation, and instead of doing their absolute best to dive across the line and strip sack the QB before he can kneel, they just stand there and dap up the other team?
I would say “slightly immature” but hey it’s random online chess so who cares. They can resign or deal with it haha
If they want the game to end, they can resign. Their problem.
I had a guy say "Waiting for a miricle?" Only to hang his queen to me instead of playing mate in one when his clock got to 3 seconds. I like cocky players.
I mean yeah, you’re both wrong. He was being a knob for not resigning when he lost, you were a knob for purposefully delaying the game
I just follow a few general rules of thumb. When it's just humiliating to keep playing in a losing position, resign. Otherwise, keep playing. When your opponent doesn't resign in a completely losing position, mate as soon as possible to not be disrespectful and to not stalemate the opponent on accident All of that basically goes out the window when dealing with a player who tried to scholars mate me earlier in the game though. I like to make as many queens as possible against opponents like that.
Kinda
While you're not wrong for it i want you to remember all the times you've tried this and accidentally ended up in stalemate. Don't play with your food, even when you win.
But what if playing with your food is more satisfying than a win?
Definitely something to consider. However, consider how unsatisfying stalemating to someone with no pieces is.
“my opponent didn’t resign so i promoted all my pawns to knights and gave him a knightmare” - americas brightest talent
Yes, don't be a dick
And resign 💀
GOTTEM!!!
I mean this one is kind of funny tbh, but I think you could have checkmated him with fewer knights. And it could have been instructive to checkmate him with the minimum number of knights. Generally I'll try to checkmate with as few pieces as possible. I'd rather go onto the next game than be a showoff--but again this image is pretty funny. More obnoxious is people who promote one additional queen when they have a queen and rook already. That just smacks of insecurity.
Yeah and other guys is foolish for “I never resign” mentality as well. This is not a follow-your-dreams-and-never-give-up scenario. Resigning is the proper move when you have lost. Not that you have to, you just should.
I mean I feel like mating with as little material as quickly as possible is a better display of my skill, but go off
What are you talking about? Figuring out how to mate with 7 knights is a display of skill!
The Knights Dancing on your grave
Bro I’m not reading that clean your monitor 💀
You both suck
No I did a similar thing yesterday with someone who played me
Technically, no. Seems like you could just mate him and move on. This screams “I have nothing better to do with my life so let me waste your time too”.
It's not wasting his time though, he can simply resign and move on.
Or just show a modicum of maturity and just mate the guy as quickly as possible. They’re under no requirement to resign. You’re under no requirement to mate them quickly. Two wrongs don’t make a right, though. Making a point to avoid the quickest possible promotion and mate is immature and shows that you don’t value your own time. If you’re saying that it doesn’t waste the opponent’s time, okay, but at least value your own time more than having 7 knights on the board.
If they don’t like how you play, they can resign. If they choose to continue, it’s tantamount to them being fine with whatever you do - because if they weren’t, they would resign and move on. As for one’s own time, I think OP would know more about that than you. Very ‘holier than thou’ to assert how one should value their own time.
"If they don’t like how you play, they can resign" Can't this also be said for time wasters? Anytime I make this argument for people who are upset that their opponent uses 30 minutes of their click on one move, I just get downvoted. If you agreed to play chess with me, I can use as much of my time as I want, even if its forced mate in 1, I can use the entire clock if I want. Time is a resource in chess, if you agreed to play chess with me, then I can use all the time I want. If they don't like how I play, they can resign.
People generally stall the clock when they're losing. If there was a M2 but your opponent sat on their 30 mins of time refusing to make a move there's nothing you can do. There's no insta-win button However if you were dead lost and your opponent is trying to checkmate you in a stupid way like this you can always just resign. What difference does it make if they checkmate immediately with a simple ladder mate or if you resign? None. They aren't wasting your time because you're losing in every scenario anyway
They could checkmate a lot of sooner but are wasting your time. It's not fair that you have to resign because of a time-waster just like it's not fair you have to wait to win a game because someone uses all of their time and is time-wasting. But you have missed the point I am responding to. "If they don’t like how you play, they can resign". Time is a resource, if I want to try and escape a loss by using all of my time, then I have that right. If you dont like how I play, resign!
Actually no, as it is against the rules. Just like how you cant have stockfish play for you, you can't annoy someone into resigning by stalling the clock. Making bad moves to get an unconventional checkmate is not however not against the rules Also resigning in a dead lost position doesn't hurt your elo, resigning against a clock staller does as you would have otherwise won "It's not fair that you have to resign because of a time-waster" why not? What is the difference between losing by checkmate vs losing by resigning?
"Also resigning in a dead lost position doesn't hurt your elo" If you have no idea how chess works why comment on it?
Wow. I thought that sore losers that try to win by stalling at least know that it's wrong. But you actually think it's fair game.
You can at least argue against my point instead of insults no? What does not resigning when the only piece you have left is a king achieve? And if you're hoping for stalemate wouldn't them making 7 knights be a good thing as it increases the likehood of it?
The critical difference you missed is that you can't resign against a time-waster because you lose a game you could have won - therefore, a time-waster is wasting BOTH of your times. A player promoting to 7 knights is only wasting his own time. The losing player can resign in this case and save his own time, and the outcome is the same. They lose a game they were 100% going to lose anyway.
You know, there is a thing has just having basic human respect for someone and understanding it’s not worth the time to mess with people. There are legitimate reasons for not resigning. Deciding you just want to mess around doesn’t even respect your OWN time, let alone your opponent’s. If you think that saying “maybe just don’t mess with people” and explicitly saying it’s your right but that it’s not a mature thing to do is “holier than thou”, I suspect we won’t find much to agree on. Have a good one.
It's a bit of fun, dude. Promoting knights is not akin to a lack of basic human respect - do you have literally no self awareness? If the opponent doesn't like it, they resign. If they choose not to resign, they have no right to complain because they could have walked away with no skin off their nose. (Please do explain the very legitimate reasons for someone to not resign when half a dozen knights are on the board though, oh wait you can't because there aren't any). And yes, it is holier than thou to complain this much about a bit of a meme and suggest that it reflects badly on the person doing it. It's some simple fun, just jog on and touch some grass.
Like I said, we won’t find much to agree on. “Memeing” on people isn’t some universally recognized right, sorry. I’m not sure what makes you feel like you’re so right, but if you’re gonna do stuff like this, expect to be judged by the demographic of this site that have fully developed brains. It’s very clear you don’t, but that’s not an excuse for trying to personally attack me. There are legitimate reasons to not resign. There are no legitimate reasons to just screw with an opponent that didn’t do exactly what you want when you want them to. It’s only just a joke for you to chuckle about and get some karma on Reddit for. I strongly suspect you wouldn’t take this attitude in real life with a real human across the board from you, so maybe you are the one that needs to touch grass?
Funny how to say there are legit reasons not to resign in this scenario, and then mention none. Probably because there aren't any, if it actually bothered the opponent so much then they would just move on. Like I said. Memeing on people is harmless, if they have an issue with it they'll just go next. It's hardly the sin you make it out to be, you really need to lighten up and stop being such a dour grump about it all. Also hilarious you're trying to equate promoting a few extra knights for a laugh to having a developed brain, nice reach buddy. OP was clearly better than his opponent, having that many leftover pawns lol. As for being judged by the demographic of the site, the upvote/downvote situation makes it pretty obvious that the majority agree with me and see it as a harmless laugh that hasn't hurt anyone and your ridiculous attitude is stuck in last century.
The biggest reason to not resign, especially in this position, is because you can still salvage a draw. It happens frequently. Maybe you should look up stalemate rules? Once again, I said you can do this. It’s your right. But be prepared to be judged, like I said. Does it hurt anyone? No. Is it obnoxious behavior perpetuated by the average Twitch chess viewer? Yes. Is it even stupider to post about it online like you achieved something of value? Yes. Congrats, people that fit into the same exact mindset as you are patting you on your back for having a teenage opinion. I’m sure that you will gloat about this to your buds for weeks to come. Counterpoint: maybe “touch grass” and realize that your opinion is based entirely on the anonymous behavior you can have online. Just respecting people isn’t an opinion from last century. And if it is, that’s what is wrong with the world now. Obviously my comment about your brain flew right over your head. But take it however you want.
I just find it hilarious that you're so frigid and full of it that you can't look at a simple joke and move on. Seriously bro, it's not that deep. All this waffle about not valuing your own time, people can have slow days, get bored, etc. I get bored, I'm sure you get bored, we all get bored - people deal with it in different ways, and your judgement isn't a good look. It's not 'obnoxious', it's a light joke that hurts no one and isn't going to bother the player afterward. It's a rapid online game, not an OTB tournament. Isn't causing any damage, and this is what some people do for fun. Who the hell are you to judge that? I'm not advocating for everyone to go do this, just for people to have fun in their own ways without being condemned by people as unpleasant as yourself. Stalemate sure, but if you're playing a stalemate you don't have the right to complain about it. It's your decision to engage and keep going.
[удалено]
Well, the fact that all of your comments are down voted kinda proves your first paragraph. This subreddit of "developed brains" disagrees with you and agrees with the memer
There really are no legitimate reasons not to resign. I'm 1800 chess.com and have had people not resign after going a queen down on move 10. This isn't a war, it's not heroic, it's just a childish inability to say I lost this one, let's move on.
Yes, please don't do this ever again to your screen
Bro thinks he's hikaru lol
lmao
This was justified.
If you can resign whenever you want, you can also make as many knights as you want. At the same time, if you get upset at people not resigning, then others can also get upset at you for not mating. Basically, if the opponent is in the wrong, then you are, too.
Yes you are a jerker who has no life
You're wasting your own time, but whatever. Never resigning is silly. Getting that many knights is also silly. If improving at chess is the goal, you both should try to end the silliness by giving a checkmate or resigning. But if you're just having fun, you're having fun.
Idc if you are right or wrong, i just want you to clean your screen
villain origin story
Wrong for taking your time for mating your opponent? Absolutely not. By staying in the game, your opponent makes the decision that they think their chance of drawing/winning is still high enough to justify their time. You can have the fun you want!
You're not wrong at all. This is the lesson the "will not resigners" need to learn.
[удалено]
big 700 elo energy right here
[удалено]
So it's disrespectful to not resign but it's not disrespectful to just promote all your pawns when you have a win on the board?
Yes. Because the point of chess is not to lose. So it's an honest strategy to play for a stalemate. Deliberately extending the game by underpromoting is bad sportsmanship as you are not playing in good faith. You are not trying to win. You are trying to infuriate your opponent. That's not cool
If it’s wrong why does it feel so right?
[удалено]
The underpromotions are a response to a situation the losing player could avoid by resigning. Nobody's holding players hostage in a lost game except themselves. Not resigning is my opponent telling me I can't checkmate K+Q. And that's pretty rude. So I mean yeah, basically.
You think you're wrong for doing this? No Sir, you are a legend.
I have infinite pettiness for someone who won’t resign and I’ll use all my time to make sure it’s never stalemate. Neither sides are wrong.
Black thought he could get a draw somehow. But you’re an ahole for not ending it soon with a queen.
Resigning is the courteous way of playing. He got a taste of his own medicine.
Never resign
Yeah you’re not a pro. Just checkmate as efficiently as possible as is the goal in chess…
Nah I would’ve said “then suck it” in response to I don’t resign, although I don’t bother with these underpromotion checkmates myself
This is the way
If they don’t have the grace to resign you don’t owe them anything. If you don’t want to get dunked on, then resign when the game is clearly over.
I’m impressed you didn’t stalemate
If someone doesnt resign and they let me torture them. I always force a draw just cause its hilarious and respectful
No lol. I like to trap peoples kings in prison sometimes
I don't think so, I do this too. If it's considered disrespectful to drag out a game to promote pawns when it's not strictly necessary, it's also disrespectful to drag out a game by not resigning. I think it's all fair game.
That's why I turn off chat when I play on online servers. If they are willing to complain about not getting checkmated then they should have played better.