What is the quickest forced mate?
Sort:
I would not respect that kind of player more, and believe that this was a good time to resign. I was not relating the player that plays for stalemate to a player that plays out a forced mate. I was relating this kind of player to rtsabari who resigned at a reasonable time. I would definitely think less of the player's skill if they could not see the potential mate, and had to play it out. I believe you are right that we will continue to disagree on how we feel about players that play for blunders.
Mate in 7 moves. If no mistakes for white
Edit:
I would also like to add you never know if the person you are playing can see the mate or not. So you may think they are just dragging the game out when in reality they don't know. I personally don't mind if they keep playing in a losing position knowing it to be so. As perhaps they see the loss but maybe I have overlooked it. Which i'm am certain has happened before many times over. So just let the games go on however they happen to unfold 7 moves in your case isn't a lifetime, and maybe he never seen it coming.
Just my thoughts feel free to use your own. :)
Why is it that the members I understand the least are those from my own country? My only other comment to s4j3n is that these things change when you reach a level of chess where blunders happen less and everyone has (tactfully suppressed or not!) quite large egos.
So you're going to tell me a GM never played out a lost position knowing it was lost? If so, you would happen to be incorrect. If Vladimir Kramnik can miss checkmate in one move which he did happen to do so vs Deep Fritz, why so are you above missing it in 7 moves? That's just one example of someone who which I'm sure will always be better than you missing a novice mate in one. So no one is above a blunder no matter how big or small, so bashing your opponent for playing on is a blunder on your part.
I said nothing of the sort!
Just to clear things up...
GMs sometimes play out lost positions. I am not above blunders. I will never be as good as Kramnik. I am nowhere near GM status.
As I said, I didn't really understand your original post, and I was doing my best to respond. I made none of the claims that you seem to imply I did. Sorry for the confusion.
The last misunderstanding to clear up is bashing my opponent for playing on. I think it would only be fair to me if you read the rest of this thread before re-posting. My opponent (rtsabari) did not play on. He resigned at what I think was an appropriate time, and I have commended him for it. If an opponent of mine were to play to checkmate, I would not criticize (or even bash) him. If an opponent of mine were rated lower than me, and tried to make me blunder into a stalemate, I would feel slightly insulted. However, I would never say anything about it. This seems good chess etiquette to me.
why didn't white play 16.bc? isn't that a free piece?
No need to feel insulted. Since even you are prone to error, and could make one at anytime, thus losing a game. It's all good if you feel insulted but you really shouldn't. Those are my thoughts. Feel free to use your own.
weixi wrote:
why didn't white play 16.bc? isn't that a free piece?
It would be if 16...Nxf3+ was not check. Since it is, when white retakes on f3, black plays 17...Bxc3 and when the Queen moves, the pawn recaptures 18...bxc6.
hallo
i no time to go trugh all coments
zo
first look like a stalemate
the king canot move and is not in chek/
but white can move the rook and wisely become a winer.
lver ...
ps : if
Why didnt you take the free mule with 17.........Nxe2+ ?? maybe I am missing something ?
My bishop is trapped! The easiest way out is just to capture the pawn. Then, no pieces are in jeopardy and I am a pawn up. After 18. Kf2, I could save my knight, then 19. bxc6 bxc6. I am still a pawn up, but my c pawns are doubled. It might be as good a line as 17...Nxb5, or close, but I wanted the simplest line and to avoid doubled pawns.
Tonightonly7, I don't see why you would have more respect for a player who plays a line that delays checkmate for 8 moves as you stated above, with no chance for a draw or a win. And why you would have less respect for someone who plays a line which most likely loses sooner, but at least has the potential of stalemate. It seems like the player hoping for stalemate is playing smarter than the player going for the slow but steady loss. In person or online.
Maybe instead of feeling insulted, you could feel confident in your abilities as a chess player, see their plan, win the game, and congratulate them for playing well. Anyway, I don't believe we'll come to any agreement here. Thanks for the dialogue. Good luck in your future games.