nah, americans just wanted to flex their weapons and blame japan for it
Well...At least we taught them when to resign!!! {Pearl Harbor} :]
@p-wnattack
When it comes to resigning, I'd definitely NOT resign if my opponent is just "shuffling pieces around for 49 moves then moving a pawn repeat." Such behavior would encourage met to NOT resign because the probability of 3 fold repetition, them disconnecting, 50 move rule, or me getting stalemated just went through the roof. Your suggestion makes me want to resign less because my chances go up with such a foolish strategy.
When it comes to resigning, I'd definitely NOT resign if my opponent is just "shuffling pieces around for 49 moves then moving a pawn repeat." Such behavior would encourage met to NOT resign because the probability of 3 fold repetition, them disconnecting, 50 move rule, or me getting stalemated just went through the roof. Your suggestion makes me want to resign less because my chances go up with such a foolish strategy.
@lurarose I would hope you have a lot of time on your hands then it would be my goal to keep you playing all day if you wanted to
@p-wnattack So you would waste your entire day against one opponent just shuffling piece around because they haven't resigned?
It's like if you come across a dog that takes a dump on the floor do you take a bigger dump on the floor next to it to show the animal your dominance?
It's like if you come across a dog that takes a dump on the floor do you take a bigger dump on the floor next to it to show the animal your dominance?
I found a game, in which you played on in a loosing position, and set a stalemate trap for your opponent
yet for some reason you have a problem with it when you are the winning player and your opponent doesn't resign.
When you are loosing you have more to gain from prolonging the game than if you are winning as by prolonging the game in a loosing position you increase the probability that your opponent will blunder, run out of time, or disconnects, and your opponent blundering, running out of time, or disconnecting may be your only hope for a draw or win. When you are winning you don't need your opponent to blunder, run out of time, or disconnect to win, and by shortening the game you generally decrease the probability that you blunder, disconnect, or run out of time and so have more to gain by winning with the fewest number of forced moves possible. In other words there is more of a pragmatic reason for the loosing player to prolong the game than there is for the winning player to prolong the game.
yet for some reason you have a problem with it when you are the winning player and your opponent doesn't resign.
When you are loosing you have more to gain from prolonging the game than if you are winning as by prolonging the game in a loosing position you increase the probability that your opponent will blunder, run out of time, or disconnects, and your opponent blundering, running out of time, or disconnecting may be your only hope for a draw or win. When you are winning you don't need your opponent to blunder, run out of time, or disconnect to win, and by shortening the game you generally decrease the probability that you blunder, disconnect, or run out of time and so have more to gain by winning with the fewest number of forced moves possible. In other words there is more of a pragmatic reason for the loosing player to prolong the game than there is for the winning player to prolong the game.
@Morozov Yep, well, that all these analogies are pretty senseless was kind of my point.
@acgusta2 Playing for a blunder-stalemate really only makes sense at low levels such as yours. So, fair enough if you are a poor player up against another poor player or your opponent is really up against the clock. Playing for disconnects has nothing to do with chess and is the least sporting way of playing possible. You may as well play on hoping your opponent suffers a stroke by the same logic.
@acgusta2 Playing for a blunder-stalemate really only makes sense at low levels such as yours. So, fair enough if you are a poor player up against another poor player or your opponent is really up against the clock. Playing for disconnects has nothing to do with chess and is the least sporting way of playing possible. You may as well play on hoping your opponent suffers a stroke by the same logic.
@gyryth "at your level such as your"
Ahaha, such arrogance while you literaly at the same level as acgusta.
Also, it took me 30 seconds to find s game where you are clearly losing on move 20, and yet you keep playing without any real hope, except for your opponent to blunder, wich he does.
Ahaha, such arrogance while you literaly at the same level as acgusta.
Also, it took me 30 seconds to find s game where you are clearly losing on move 20, and yet you keep playing without any real hope, except for your opponent to blunder, wich he does.
@Negmek You are ignorant of how I use lichess so I will forgive you, but I only play competitively in Classical mode, where I am well over 200 points above either of you. I use Rapid to play just for fun, try new openings or analyse certain lines. Blitz and Bullet are not my style and I'm hopeless in either of them - I just use them when I only have five spare minutes. Your argument is purely ad hominem - you are attacking me, not what I said, which would be true even if my rating was 20.
Incidentally, if you want to put something in quotes ( "" ) it needs to be exactly word-for-word (use cut and paste) or you just look sloppy - I would never write at the ungrammatical level which you impute to me.
[EDIT] btw, thanks for looking over my games, I find it genuinely flattering. The one you picked out was indeed a moral victory plucked from the jaws of defeat, but being only a rook vs pawn down in such a sharp game was far from decisive as either side could easily pick up a piece with a tactic. It was indeed a comedy of errors but you could see I was going for the knight fork on king and rook, and when he exchanged and erred on move 39 I knew perfectly well that I could force stalemate in the corner, so I did.
Incidentally, if you want to put something in quotes ( "" ) it needs to be exactly word-for-word (use cut and paste) or you just look sloppy - I would never write at the ungrammatical level which you impute to me.
[EDIT] btw, thanks for looking over my games, I find it genuinely flattering. The one you picked out was indeed a moral victory plucked from the jaws of defeat, but being only a rook vs pawn down in such a sharp game was far from decisive as either side could easily pick up a piece with a tactic. It was indeed a comedy of errors but you could see I was going for the knight fork on king and rook, and when he exchanged and erred on move 39 I knew perfectly well that I could force stalemate in the corner, so I did.
@Gyryth It is sloppy cause I'm writing on android and cut paste is horrendous. But thanks for criticising my supposed ad hominem and imidiately attacking something other then the subject of discussion. Oh lol, the hypocrisy thikens.
Anyway, you might believe that 1700 lichess after 8000 thousand games is good, and you are above making silly blunders. But f I was playing a losing position against you, you would also have to forgive me for not taking your word for it.
Anyway, you might believe that 1700 lichess after 8000 thousand games is good, and you are above making silly blunders. But f I was playing a losing position against you, you would also have to forgive me for not taking your word for it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.