< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|May-24-10|| ||kevin86: White was very coy with his king moves-and just when the king was immobilized-on a help basis,the trap was sprung and black was forced to eat the queen.|
The ugly result,black five pawns ahead,is swindled into a draw.
|May-24-10|| ||SuperPatzer77: <Once> Your analysis of Black's win is correct. |
My other analysis (instead of 43...a2) is 43...Qa1+, 44. Kd2 Qb2+, 45. Qxb2 axb2
<Once> Gee whiz - It is an awful goof by Eugene Delmar (Black).
|May-24-10|| ||YouRang: Well, the solution is obvious enough.
But the real puzzle is:
1. Why didn't white resign earlier?
2. Given the white *didn't* resign, why wasn't black at least alert to stalemate tactic? He was up against a one trick pony, and got fooled anyway!
Oh well, we all make careless moves at times. I bet Delmar learned from this game.
|May-24-10|| ||Fusilli: <SamAtoms1980: If I were White and sitting at this position with White to play, I would shove my Queen as far down the board as I could, out of sheer frustration.
Then I'd be like, "Ooohhhhh ...... YEEAAAHHH!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLL">|
That was funny, Sam! Thanks for the humor.
|May-24-10|| ||TheTamale: What kind of play do you expect in a tourney where they spell "congress" with a K??|
|May-24-10|| ||Billy Vaughan: <What kind of play do you expect in a tourney where they spell "congress" with a K??>|
Hahaha, that's the type of tournament you'd expect in Donkey Kong Country.
|May-24-10|| ||ChessPraxis: It just goes to show you should never resign no matter how hopeless your position seems to be. I never resign even when I'm down loads of material against a higher rated player. I make them PROVE that they can win. Okay, when it's one move away from a forced checkmate - I WILL resign at that point as a sign of respect to my opponent (and also to cheat them out of the pleasure of actually giving mate) - but usually I'll still let my clock run down to 3 or 4 seconds left just to "make sure" I haven't missed anything!|
|May-24-10|| ||YouRang: I wonder who was more embarrassed after <43...Qc3??> was played?|
Delmar, for getting falling for an obvious stalemate trap, or Congdon, for wetting his pants.
|May-24-10|| ||DarthStapler: Got it easily|
|May-24-10|| ||fm avari viraf: Congdon gives a 'Condom Check' with a great sigh of relief.|
|May-24-10|| ||gauer: An apparently unique situation in #5647, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... is a sort of 'reverse' situation of drawn puzzles in 68 ... ? draw : E R Lundin vs W Hasenfuss, 1931 & 50 ? draw : Blackburne vs Winawer, 1892 .|
1st case: <both> sides have <many> moves, but don't wish to leave the 'perp' lines, for fear of self-mate; 2nd situation, <either side> gets to force neither side have any moves, but would definitely wish to avoid <any/all> checking lines! Others, games composed that show a double-stalemate, in which <either> on move have <no> further moves, are also present in this database!
This is only the 6th round of the Kongress, but perhaps black thought he was in a must-win position, & short on the clock.
Anyone have any opinions of how tricky it might be to rewrite a computer engine so that it treats a stalemate as a win or loss (or draw, resp. - this one we already have done) for the player initiating the stalemate (instead of trying to continue on initiating on for checkmate)? - it likely changes a bunch of 'fortress' tablebase endings assessments, etc.
|May-24-10|| ||Patriot: <ChessPraxis>
<It just goes to show you should never resign no matter how hopeless your position seems to be. I never resign even when I'm down loads of material against a higher rated player. I make them PROVE that they can win.> You may have something if you are rated around 800 and your opponent is 1000. But if you are around 1500 USCF I would strongly disagree. If they are reasonably close to my rating or much higher then I'm going to study the position really well to make sure I have no way back in the game and then I will resign (out of respect) so I can take a break before the next round. It's usually just a waste of time for both players and frustrating for the winning player.
<Okay, when it's one move away from a forced checkmate - I WILL resign at that point as a sign of respect to my opponent (and also to cheat them out of the pleasure of actually giving mate) - but usually I'll still let my clock run down to 3 or 4 seconds left just to "make sure" I haven't missed anything!> Resigning when only one move away from mate out of respect (?) adds fuel to the fire. This turns out to be very disrespectful, especially where the other player is way ahead for a long time.
|May-24-10|| ||WhiteRook48: 44 Qg8+ obviously|
|May-24-10|| ||cracknik: Very easy today. That must have been pretty painful for black.|
|May-24-10|| ||micartouse: <Resigning when only one move away from mate out of respect (?) adds fuel to the fire. This turns out to be very disrespectful, especially where the other player is way ahead for a long time.>|
Agree with Patriot. I think it's reasonable to play for stalemate as in this game, but in certain situations (such as being a couple pieces down without compensation or trap potential), not resigning lacks class. In these cases, resign out of self-respect and sense of dignity.
|May-24-10|| ||wals: Success, you little ripper!
Rybka 3 1-cpu: 3071mb hash: depth
White, a Knight for a Bishop.
-1.78 19.Kf3. Any of the following were better:-
1. (-0.56): 19.Ba3 Rxc1 20.Bxc1 Qf5 21.Nb2 b5 22.Nd1 Rc8 23.Bb2 h6 24.f3 Qf4 25.Nf2 Bf5 26.Ba3
2. (-0.88): 19.h4 Qa5 20.Qe4 Bd7 21.Qf4 b5 22.Qd6 Bf5 23.Nc5 Qd2 24.Ba3 Rfe8 25.Red1 Qxa2 26.Bb4 Qe2 27.Re1 Qg4
3. (-1.04): 19.f4 Qxf4 20.Nc5 Bxh3 21.Ne4 Bh4 22.gxh3 Bxe1 23.Rxe1 f5 24.Nf2 Rf6 25.Qe5 Rg6+ 26.Kf1 Qf3 27.Qh2 Rg3 28.Bxd4 Rc2 29.Bxa7 Rxa2 30.Bc5 h6 31.Re3 Ra1+
4. (-1.07): 19.Rxc8 Rxc8 20.Ba3 b5 21.Nb2 h6 22.Kh2 Qf4+ 23.Kg1 a5 24.Nd1 Qg5 25.Kf1 Qd5 26.f3
5. (-1.08): 19.Qe4 b5 20.f4 Qh5 21.Rxc8 Rxc8 22.f5 Qxf5 23.Qxf5 Bxf5 24.Nc5 a5 25.a3 h5 26.b4 axb4 27.axb4 Ra8 28.Re2 h4 29.Rf2 g6 30.Re2 Kg7
-2.71 20.h4. Only move better, Rxc8 -
-3.44 21.Red1. Only move better,Ba3 -
Black,a Bishop for a Knight.
-1.83 21...Rxc1. Better move, Qb4 -3.44.
White, a Knight for a Bishop and two pawns.
-2.47 24.g3. Available,
1. (-1.17): 24.Rf1 Qc2 25.Ba3 Be7 26.Qh5 Bxb3 27.Nxb3 Bxa3 28.Qxb5 a6 29.Nxd4 axb5 30.Nxc2 Bd6 31.Rb1 b4 32.Kf1 Rc8 33.Ne3 f6 34.Nc4 Be7 35.Ke2 Ra8 36.d4 Ra2+ 37.Rb2
2. (-1.56): 24.b4 Be7 25.Re1 Bxc5 26.bxc5 Qa5 27.Qe4 Qc3 28.Bf4 Qxc5 29.Rc1 Qb4 30.Be5 a5 31.Bxd4 Rd8 32.Bb6 Qxe4 33.dxe4 Ra8 34.Rc5 Bd7 35.Rd5 Be8 36.Rd8
3. (-1.87): 24.Re1 Qc2 25.b4 a5 26.Qf4 Be7 27.Qxd4 axb4 28.Nxe6 fxe6 29.Qe3 Rf6 30.Re2 Qc6 31.Bb2 Rg6 32.f3 b3 33.Kf1 Rh6 34.Qe5 Rh1+ 35.Kf2 Qc5+ 36.Qxc5 Bxc5+ 37.d4 Be7 38.Ke3 Kf7
You would have to say that the game has slipped from White's grasp.(Black is now up three pawns.)
-3.86 27.Rc1. -5.08 28.Qb7. ( 32...Qxg3, Black is now up 5 pawns.
Cutting to the chase, IF,
43...Qe4, Black wins easily, so Black was hung by his own mistake.
|May-24-10|| ||wals: And 43...Qg4 +#8 is better still.|
|May-24-10|| ||turbo231: I'm showing my ignorance but would this stalemated be called a swindle?|
|May-24-10|| ||MaxxLange: Yes. This would indeed be called a swindle.|
|May-24-10|| ||turbo231: <MaxxLange: Yes. This would indeed be called a swindle.>|
|May-24-10|| ||dzechiel: <turbo231: I'm showing my ignorance but would this stalemated be called a swindle?>|
I think if you were to look up the term "swindle" in a chess dictionary, it would have a picture of this position along with the text "44 Qg8+".
|May-24-10|| ||ohfluckaduck: It is age, I am sure, this 1 second puzzle took me ten minutes to solve. To be forty again!|
|May-25-10|| ||TheaN: <ChessPraxis: It just goes to show you should never resign no matter how hopeless your position seems to be. I never resign even when I'm down loads of material against a higher rated player.>|
Just to elaborate on this and what Patriot said: this is not to be recommended. If I'm down a Queen, two Rooks and a few pieces I'm slamming the wall for not resigning earlier... >_>, truth be told, in a non-swindling position, just resign for your own case.
<I make them PROVE that they can win.>
This can be relevant for an exchange or perhaps even a piece deficit, not more.
<Okay, when it's one move away from a forced checkmate - I WILL resign at that point as a sign of respect to my opponent (and also to cheat them out of the pleasure of actually giving mate)>
If that's the reason given it is more of a troll nature rather than respect. In fact, the sole truth that your opponent got to checkmating your king shows he CAN win. So why resign just at that -#1 moment? Then it becomes unnecessary.
< - but usually I'll still let my clock run down to 3 or 4 seconds left just to "make sure" I haven't missed anything!>
This really makes me think your entire post was made to troll. This is probably the most disrespectful and egoistic time abuse. If it IS mate in one, just allow it. Whether you have 2 minutes or 20 minutes to think, the situation won't change.
|May-29-10|| ||ChessPraxis: Patriot, micartouse, and THeaN: Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to the ridiculous position I advocated in this thread. I completely agree with each one of you. I should have put an "LOL" at the end of it to indicate I was just being sarcastic or writing a parody. (And I should have responded earlier, too. I had forgotten that I had written this post.) I was actually trying to articulate what some of my opponents must be thinking when they play on in completely lost positions. I find this happens quite often in internet chess both in "real time" and one move every other day types of games. Personally, I believe that chess is a fight. But when it's clear that my opponent is winning I simply resign and move on to the next game.. That's what I truly think "respectful" means (amongst other things.|
|May-09-11|| ||panzerkampf: <too easy> yeah but to reach this position is extremely funny.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·