I always try to win my games by stalemate that is how I like to win remember you can't fix stupid.
#31 A "stalemate" is not a win...It is a draw...You can't fix...What?
Oh, ffs, I rephrase it for the smart dumbasses here:
Situation:
You are clearly winning because your opponent made some huge blunders and you have (for example) your queen, two rooks and a knight whiile your opponent has only his King and a couple of pawns left. Your opponent then, instead of resigning, tries to create a situation that would favour a stalemate (if you make the mistake to allowing it, ofc).
Dont' you f***ing think that this kind of behaviour is silly and stupid?
I think it would be better to resign and do a rematch, for example:
I consider this behaviour a waste of time.
Is it clealer now?
I was NOT obviously referring to a situation where you have for example 1 king and pawn on both sides and a stalemate occur.
And I was not arguing about the legitimacy or not legitimacy of the stalemate, because ofc it is legitimate (it is not against the rules otherwise it just wouldn't be possible lol), but I think that in some cases it is stupid to play like this because in the meantime you could play another game.
Jeez, I thought that people playing chess would be smart enough on average to understand the meaning of a simple post.
Probably I was wrong. I suggest that some of you invest some more time in the communication/reading skills.
Situation:
You are clearly winning because your opponent made some huge blunders and you have (for example) your queen, two rooks and a knight whiile your opponent has only his King and a couple of pawns left. Your opponent then, instead of resigning, tries to create a situation that would favour a stalemate (if you make the mistake to allowing it, ofc).
Dont' you f***ing think that this kind of behaviour is silly and stupid?
I think it would be better to resign and do a rematch, for example:
I consider this behaviour a waste of time.
Is it clealer now?
I was NOT obviously referring to a situation where you have for example 1 king and pawn on both sides and a stalemate occur.
And I was not arguing about the legitimacy or not legitimacy of the stalemate, because ofc it is legitimate (it is not against the rules otherwise it just wouldn't be possible lol), but I think that in some cases it is stupid to play like this because in the meantime you could play another game.
Jeez, I thought that people playing chess would be smart enough on average to understand the meaning of a simple post.
Probably I was wrong. I suggest that some of you invest some more time in the communication/reading skills.
Your points were clear. You are obviously the one who needs to take more notice of what has been said. Using your above example. If this were a game where there was no time pressure and you respected your opponents ability to easily win the game at some point then of course you will resign.
If however you take the exact same position and he has say 10 secs on his clock. Of course you will play on.
Your question has been understood. The answer as many have said is ' circumstances'.
If however you take the exact same position and he has say 10 secs on his clock. Of course you will play on.
Your question has been understood. The answer as many have said is ' circumstances'.
I owe you not a sort of apology but I too got taken down this track of you cannot force a stalemate it your opponents to give based on a comment earlier in the thread. As is the universe and how it works an example of both why 'carrying on' is valid in certain conditions and how suddenly bottom left of the board mating position provides a way to show you in practical terms. Not only does this demonstrate the point but also shows that you CAN force it.
If your going to argue I had a Queen so it not a 'lost' position then re think your chess. I am clearly dead in the water and played for this if you look at the last 3 moves.
I have the game as a live public study for all so you should be able to find it though not my thing so unsure. I use Lichess for experiment mainly on the train etc. If nothing else this coincidently SHOULD answer your question with a practical example now.
1.e4f52.exf5g63.fxg6hxg64.d4Bh65.Bxh6Nxh66.c4e67.Nf3Qf68.Nc3Nc69.Be2Nb410.Nb5Na611.c5c612.Nd6+Ke713.a3b614.b4bxc515.dxc5Bb716.Nxb7Rab817.Qd6+Kf718.Qxd7+Kg819.Nd6Qxa1+20.Bd1Rf821.O-ORh722.Qxe6+Nf723.Bb3Qc324.Nxf7Rhxf725.Qxg6+Kh826.Bxf7Rxf727.Qxf7Qc228.Ng5Nxb429.axb4a530.bxa5Qd331.Re1Qf1+32.Rxf11/2-1/2 Draw by stalemate.
If your going to argue I had a Queen so it not a 'lost' position then re think your chess. I am clearly dead in the water and played for this if you look at the last 3 moves.
I have the game as a live public study for all so you should be able to find it though not my thing so unsure. I use Lichess for experiment mainly on the train etc. If nothing else this coincidently SHOULD answer your question with a practical example now.
1.e4f52.exf5g63.fxg6hxg64.d4Bh65.Bxh6Nxh66.c4e67.Nf3Qf68.Nc3Nc69.Be2Nb410.Nb5Na611.c5c612.Nd6+Ke713.a3b614.b4bxc515.dxc5Bb716.Nxb7Rab817.Qd6+Kf718.Qxd7+Kg819.Nd6Qxa1+20.Bd1Rf821.O-ORh722.Qxe6+Nf723.Bb3Qc324.Nxf7Rhxf725.Qxg6+Kh826.Bxf7Rxf727.Qxf7Qc228.Ng5Nxb429.axb4a530.bxa5Qd331.Re1Qf1+32.Rxf11/2-1/2 Draw by stalemate.
Yes, it's fair, just like trying to checkmate.
As an aside Stockfish has me dead and opponent on paper is better competent. Snaps the knight and then the pawn. Stockfish assuming win play predicts a pointless move that without time pressure would see me in a position much like the one you quote.
'Circumstances'.......... and a good degree of human thought over logical progression.
'Circumstances'.......... and a good degree of human thought over logical progression.
Pity your keyboard got no comma key, @IanJamesHudson.
@Sybotes Pity your keyboard got no comma key, @IanJamesHudson.
Hey my man it was quick forum post not a letter to the board of good grammar :)
Hey my man it was quick forum post not a letter to the board of good grammar :)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.