PDA

View Full Version : Playing on in a ridiculously hopeless position



Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 11:37 AM
Does Article 12.1 come into play, "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute," if a player is continuing a position against a strong opponent that so lost that a very weak club player would win 99% of the time.

I just read the report on the Fiji Zonal in New Zealand Chess , which describes a game where a player played on and on against a strong IM and was mated by a string of underpromoted bishops on the last rank. The report said, "Resignation was about 50 moves overdue, so the point was well made." Next round, the loser again continued until he was mated. There is fighting spirit and there is just pure obstinacy.

CameronD
24-07-2007, 12:32 PM
No one has a right to tell someone when to resign, or to penealize them if they dont. I've played a lot of juniors who play on when the game is finished (Rook against king stuck on 8th rank with pawns locked togeather, Its their game and I have no problem with this.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 12:33 PM
It has happened to everyone. Sometimes there is some trick that the opponent is hoping for, between weak players it is often stalemate.

In the Aust. major in Brisbane two years ago an opponent did this to me. He was winning (P up in a rook endgame) but misplayed the endgame and then was losing. In the end he was playing on in a pawnless K+Q v K endgame and, what's worse, taking a long time between moves. I was short of time (but increments applied at every move and so wasn't going to lose provided I didn't leave the table) and the game was the last one to finish in the hall (major and championship). I think he was hoping I would have to go to the toilet and he would be able to make a quick move and then I would lose on time.

Anyway, I eventually won and although the arbiters were greatly inconvenienced, they did not intervene. One of the arbiters did comment to me the following day though that he considered my opponent was ill-mannered. Though the word "disrepute" and article 12.1 didn't come up.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 01:41 PM
No one has a right to tell someone when to resign, or to penealize them if they dont. I've played a lot of juniors who play on when the game is finished (Rook against king stuck on 8th rank with pawns locked togeather, Its their game and I have no problem with this.
OK, it is one thing in a junior tournament or with fast time controls, quite another in an adults tourney with long time controls.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-07-2007, 01:43 PM
The player you refer to is a young kid. Maybe nobody told him that he shouldn't play on in a lost position.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 01:45 PM
The player you refer to is a young kid. Maybe nobody told him that he shouldn't play on in a lost position.

My opponent wasn't young at all.

Spiny Norman
24-07-2007, 02:46 PM
In our club's current Fischer Random tournament, played at 15 minute time controls, I was playing against a junior. After some blunders in time trouble on both sides, we got to a position where I had K+Q+P vs K+Q (okay, not a hopeless position by a long shot) ... but this is where fate intervened ... the clock proved to be faulty and failed 3 times ... eventually this proved to be enough of a distraction, as I had just 40 seconds left on the clock ... I played the only losing move on the board, lost my queen and the game.

So I reckon that at fast time controls, almost never resign. At normal rated-tournament time controls, I tend to resign fairly early on if I am up against a stronger player, but will play on until hopeless against weaker players IF I have time up on the clock, as I try to set traps for them.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-07-2007, 03:08 PM
My opponent wasn't young at all.
It was about post #1

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 03:46 PM
The player you refer to is a young kid. Maybe nobody told him that he shouldn't play on in a lost position.
I know who he is. He is also apparently autistic. But should a director tell him that it was bad manners to play on till mate against master-strength opposition in an international tournament? If so, what sanctions are available to a director if he is ignored?

CameronD
24-07-2007, 04:06 PM
1. The time control in my game was 60+30 with over 30 minutes left each

2. No director/official/arbiter/GrandMaster etc has the right to tell any player to resign in any circumstances!!

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 05:29 PM
I think the best punishment for players who lack the decency to resign when totally lost (eg several pieces down and zero compensation) is to beat them in some suitably amusing fashion and then smash them off the board in seventeen moves the next time that you play them.

As an arbiter I don't like the idea of sanctioning a player for playing on in a lost position. After all the defined object of the game is to checkmate, and resigning is a social nicety that no-one should be obliged to agree with. But if they play on needlessly slowly and vexatiously, especially with increments, I would give them a warning under 12.1.

I quite strongly dislike it when players play on forever in dead lost positions then pathetically resign the move before they are going to be checkmated, just to avoid being mated. If you must play on in a dead lost position then let the other person finish you off. But again I do not see this as an arbiting matter.

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 06:05 PM
I quite strongly dislike it when players play on forever in dead lost positions then pathetically resign the move before they are going to be checkmated, just to avoid being mated. If you must play on in a dead lost position then let the other person finish you off. But again I do not see this as an arbiting matter.

This is exactly what my opponent did resigning at move 92 with mate in 1.

My opponent (black) played on 15 moves from the following position

7R/7P/8/6p1/k4r2/8/5p2/5K2 b - - 3 77

Taking around 3 minutes per move. The moves were...

77... Kb3 78.Rb8+ Kc4 79.h8=Q Kd3 80.Qd8+ Rd4 81.Qxg5 Kc2 82.Qc5+ Kd3 83.Rb3+ Ke4 84.Rb4 Rxb4 85.Qxb4+ Kf3 86.Qc3+ Ke4 87.Kxf2 Kd5 88.Kf3 Ke6 89.Ke4 Kd7 90.Ke5 Ke7 91.Qc7+ Kf8 92.Kf6 {resigns} 1-0

I should have played 86.Qd4 which would have saved a couple of moves.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 07:23 PM
I think the best punishment for players who lack the decency to resign when totally lost (eg several pieces down and zero compensation) is to beat them in some suitably amusing fashion and then smash them off the board in seventeen moves the next time that you play them.
Well, in the case in hand, the amusing win was exactly what the IM did. I've forced someone into a mate in the corner where the only mating pieces were three Bs. The second part should be done whether they resign decently or not :evil:


As an arbiter I don't like the idea of sanctioning a player for playing on in a lost position. After all the defined object of the game is to checkmate, and resigning is a social nicety that no-one should be obliged to agree with. But if they play on needlessly slowly and vexatiously, especially with increments, I would give them a warning under 12.1.
Yeah, in a short game, it is not such a problem, but needlessly dragging out the round, and possibly delaying the start of the next, deserves some warning.

Garvinator
24-07-2007, 07:49 PM
Does Article 12.1 come into play, "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute," if a player is continuing a position against a strong opponent that so lost that a very weak club player would win 99% of the time.
I think 12.1 is more likely to be applied, or have a chance of being applied, when a player is only trying to win on time in a dead drawn ending. I mean something like R v R and there are no swindle chances.

Any player has the right to play on in a dead lost ending. While it can be frustrating for all to see someone playing on when they clearly should be resigning, it is not for the arbiters to intervene.

By the way, I think players flogging dead drawn endings when increments apply is a worse 'crime' than a person not resigning when dead lost. At least with the dead lost position, it will finish soon enough. Same cant be said for the dead drawn position going around and around :uhoh:

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 08:05 PM
I think 12.1 is more likely to be applied, or have a chance of being applied, when a player is only trying to win on time in a dead drawn ending. I mean something like R v R and there are no swindle chances.

Any player has the right to play on in a dead lost ending. While it can be frustrating for all to see someone playing on when they clearly should be resigning, it is not for the arbiters to intervene.

Do you remember the game I was talking about? I can't remember if you stayed back that night or not. My opponent was dead lost and could only have been hoping for a stalemate or draw on time. Unlike me he still had a bit of time on his clock and seemed intent to use it all up - "thinking" for around 3 minutes per move even when into a K+Q v K position.

The arbiters needed to do the draw for the following day and so was delayed even longer than me.

Garvinator
24-07-2007, 09:00 PM
Do you remember the game I was talking about? I can't remember if you stayed back that night or not. My opponent was dead lost and could only have been hoping for a stalemate or draw on time. Unlike me he still had a bit of time on his clock and seemed intent to use it all up - "thinking" for around 3 minutes per move even when into a K+Q v K position.

The arbiters needed to do the draw for the following day and so was delayed even longer than me.
I think I do but not sure. There were a couple of nights when Shannon Oliver was last to finish as well.

In this situation you describe, it would be quite likely that in most tournaments the arbiter would already be starting to do the draw for the next round and have assumed a result ;)

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 09:07 PM
I think I do but not sure. There were a couple of nights when Shannon Oliver was last to finish as well.

In this situation you describe, it would be quite likely that in most tournaments the arbiter would already be starting to do the draw for the next round and have assumed a result ;)

I was just wondering if the arbiters might have had some discussion as to any options they had in forcing the result to come a bit quicker. I mean, a player taking 3 minutes to make most of Black's moves in the game portion I posted above, they are just being mischievous of vindictive, surely. It wold be a good thing to be able to prevent such behaviour.

Bereaved
24-07-2007, 09:16 PM
Hi everyone,

I do know of a game ( between adults ) where Black lost on time in the following position

1k6/8/1K1BB3/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1

The point is that they had 45 minutes in which to lose on time......

Seems an extreme example, I know, but it seems right on the money for this thread.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 09:20 PM
The point is that they had 45 minutes in which to lose on time......

Unless there were extenuating circumstances (hard to imagine what) I would be sorely tempted to warn a player sitting in that position that if they continued to stall they risked expulsion from the tournament.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2007, 09:59 PM
Unless there were extenuating circumstances (hard to imagine what) I would be sorely tempted to warn a player sitting in that position that if they continued to stall they risked expulsion from the tournament.I agree.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-07-2007, 10:02 PM
Unless there were extenuating circumstances (hard to imagine what) I would be sorely tempted to warn a player sitting in that position that if they continued to stall they risked expulsion from the tournament.
If the player does not leave the board, he has a right (legally!) to sit until his flag fall. Of course he runs a risk of being ostracized by others.

pax
24-07-2007, 10:10 PM
Does Article 12.1 come into play, "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute," if a player is continuing a position against a strong opponent that so lost that a very weak club player would win 99% of the time.

I just read the report on the Fiji Zonal in New Zealand Chess , which describes a game where a player played on and on against a strong IM and was mated by a string of underpromoted bishops on the last rank.

So who is bringing the game into disrepute here, the beginner who refuses to resign a lost position, or the experienced IM who refuses to win a won position in order to ridicule a child by underpromoting to bishops?? :hmm: :hmm:

pax
24-07-2007, 10:13 PM
I know who he is. He is also apparently autistic. But should a director tell him that it was bad manners to play on till mate against master-strength opposition in an international tournament? If so, what sanctions are available to a director if he is ignored?

It would be absolutely out of place for an arbiter to advise a player to resign. Far more inappropriate than playing on in a lost position.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 10:14 PM
If the player does not leave the board, he has a right (legally!) to sit until his flag fall.

Not if the arbiter rules he is bringing the game into disrepute by doing so. If the arbiter rules that the action breaches 12.1 then the arbiter may apply penalties up to and including 13.4 g. "expulsion from the event." The reason I would threaten to use that penalty is that for a player in an already dead-lost position who is playing on vexatiously, no other threat of penalty is likely to be effective.

IA Gijssen in one of his columns referred to a game where Anand (I think) played on for a while with KNN vs K. He said that if he was the arbiter he would have issued a disrepute warning as a GM playing another should immediately agree KNN vs K drawn rather than trying to win it. I completely agree with Gijssen and think it is equally applicable to players stalling blatantly for no reason in lost positions as to players wasting time trying to win blatantly drawn ones.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2007, 10:19 PM
It would be absolutely out of place for an arbiter to advise a player to resign.

I don't think an arbiter should ever advise a player to resign during the game. I have no objection to an arbiter having a polite word with a player about it afterwards.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 10:36 PM
Unless there were extenuating circumstances (hard to imagine what) I would be sorely tempted to warn a player sitting in that position that if they continued to stall they risked expulsion from the tournament.
I agree too. It would probably warranted for Rincewind's opponent too, taking three minutes a move with K v K+Q.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2007, 10:38 PM
So who is bringing the game into disrepute here, the beginner who refuses to resign a lost position, or the experienced IM who refuses to win a won position in order to ridicule a child by underpromoting to bishops?? :hmm: :hmm:
Who is the "beginner", unless it's now OK to award FM titles to beginners? I know you like deflation of titles, but that's going too far even for you :P

Rincewind
24-07-2007, 10:40 PM
It would be absolutely out of place for an arbiter to advise a player to resign. Far more inappropriate than playing on in a lost position.

How about suggesting to them that they should not be systematically consuming time for no purpose other than the protraction of a lost game to the inconvenience of the opponent, arbiters and (potentially) all players waiting to commence the next round?

I don't have a problem with playing on if the do it in a timely way.

I don;t want arbiters giving players genuinely trying to think the hurry-up, just the spiteful time-wasters.

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2007, 02:44 AM
How about suggesting to them that they should not be systematically consuming time for no purpose other than the protraction of a lost game to the inconvenience of the opponent, arbiters and (potentially) all players waiting to commence the next round?
That seems fair. After all, a position that a fairly weak club player should win with time to think about his moves should not be played out against a strong one. E.g. K+Q v K with long time controls should be resigned, maybe after one little stalemate try. K+R v K should also not be dragged out against a medium club player. Such draggers are wasting their time and everyone else's. It's not like we're begrudging players from testing whether an opponent can do K+B+N v K or K+2N v P below the Troitsky line.

CameronD
25-07-2007, 02:50 AM
I have serious problems that an arbiter can penalize a player (inc. expulsion) for not resigning, its their time they can do what they like with it. If tournaments have problems with later rounds, then they should use shorter time controls, not blame the player. If an arbiter told me to resign, I would appeal and take up another hobby instead.

Also, what constitutes a won game. 2B v K is a lost position, yet most players wouldn't know how to convert.

I've just gone through my games database (all ACF rated) and found 3/17 (17%) games played on in a totally lost position (to mate or a move away). Only counted my wins and removed games where I won by checkmate combination (another 4). If this is the trend, then you'll ben throwing a lot of players out.

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2007, 11:07 AM
Article 13.2 "The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition."

There is probably some flexibility to penalize a deliberate staller in a ridiculously lost or drawn game if he is holding up the next round or prize-giving.

Desmond
25-07-2007, 01:01 PM
I do know of a game ( between adults ) where Black lost on time in the following position

The point is that they had 45 minutes in which to lose on time......

Seems an extreme example, I know, but it seems right on the money for this thread.
I can think of one player (I suppose there must be more) who will routinely sit and lose of time when it is mate on the move, regardless of the clock situation.

WhiteElephant
25-07-2007, 01:16 PM
I can think of one player (I suppose there must be more) who will routinely sit and lose of time when it is mate on the move, regardless of the clock situation.

It is common on the internet. Can't imagine anyone would be brave enough to do it in a tournament game. It is so low that they would get laughed at and talked about at every tournament for the rest of their life.

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2007, 04:33 PM
Article 13.2 "The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition."

There is probably some flexibility to penalize a deliberate staller in a ridiculously lost or drawn game if he is holding up the next round or prize-giving.That and as previously noted Article 12.1 would be the relevant articles the Arbiter could use.

Desmond
25-07-2007, 04:59 PM
It is common on the internet. Can't imagine anyone would be brave enough to do it in a tournament game. It is so low that they would get laughed at and talked about at every tournament for the rest of their life.Yes, he does, and "brave" isn't a word I would use for it.

Axiom
25-07-2007, 05:17 PM
Yes, he does, and "brave" isn't a word I would use for it.
"autistic"?

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2007, 07:24 PM
I have serious problems that an arbiter can penalize a player (inc. expulsion) for not resigning, its their time they can do what they like with it.

Not if they are deliberately wasting lots of the opponent's time for no good reason in a way that brings the game into disrepute. As I mentioned above, IA Gijssen who is one of the world's leading arbiters has supported the use of this rule in the case of a player playing on for a win at top GM level with KNN vs K. He has also supported it recently for players who persistently repeat moves dozens of times without either claiming a draw, eg to stall while waiting for other results to be known.


If tournaments have problems with later rounds, then they should use shorter time controls, not blame the player. If an arbiter told me to resign, I would appeal and take up another hobby instead.

Who here is saying the arbiter should force the player to resign? My comments about threatening to expel a player were in the specific context where a player not only plays on endlessly, but does so needlessly and vexatiously slowly.


Also, what constitutes a won game. 2B v K is a lost position, yet most players wouldn't know how to convert.

Irrelevant because the issue isn't playing on in a lost position, but, as the thread title suggests, playing on in a ridiculously lost one. K vs KBB is lost, but not "ridiculously" so except perhaps at the highest level.


I've just gone through my games database (all ACF rated) and found 3/17 (17%) games played on in a totally lost position (to mate or a move away). Only counted my wins and removed games where I won by checkmate combination (another 4). If this is the trend, then you'll ben throwing a lot of players out.

No we won't, because most likely those players played on and on and on but did not play needlessly slowly, and most of us are arguing that that is OK within the rules even if it is very bad etiquette.

A question for those who think the players should be allowed to play how they like within the time control: if this is the case then there is nothing to stop them from just repeatedly playing the same moves with both players never claiming a draw, in which case any game with increments could go indefinitely. Is there a point at which you would intervene, or should increments be never used just in case someone does this?

Aaron Guthrie
26-07-2007, 11:06 AM
A question for those who think the players should be allowed to play how they like within the time control: if this is the case then there is nothing to stop them from just repeatedly playing the same moves with both players never claiming a draw,They can get away with a few thousand (from memory) moves without an instance 3 fold or 50 rep.
in which case any game with increments could go indefinitely. Is there a point at which you would intervene, or should increments be never used just in case someone does this?Or a tc such that inc stops after a certain number of moves.

CameronD
26-07-2007, 11:32 AM
If its really that bad,

then complete the draw for the next round,

and mak them play 2 games at once :lol:

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2007, 10:00 PM
They can get away with a few thousand (from memory) moves without an instance 3 fold or 50 rep.

5898 is the figure I came up with here (WARNING: pdf link) (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bruce23.pdf) but in any case no player is required to claim a triple rep or 50 move draw.

Spiny Norman
27-07-2007, 10:43 AM
Following is a game I am currently playing online, at a rate of 3 days/move. I'd be interested for people to submit at what point, if any, they would resign. The game is actually continuing, so if you'd play on, feel free to mention that. I'm White:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 c6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 d5 5.exd5 cxd5 6.Bb3 Bb4 7.Bd2 0-0 8.Nge2 Nc6
9.a3 Bc5 10.0-0 Be6 11.Na4 Bd6 12.f4 Bg4 13.h3 Bd7 14.fxe5 Bxe5 15.Bf4 Bxf4 16.Rxf4 Na5
17.Ba2 Bxa4 18.Rxa4 Nc6 19.Kh1 Qd7 20.Rf4 Ne5 21.Qd2 Ng6 22.Rf2 Rac8 23.Raf1 Rc6 24.c3 h6
25.Nd4 Rb6 26.Nf5 Kh7 27.Nxh6 gxh6 28.Rxf6 Rxf6 29.Rxf6 Qe7 30.Qf2 Kg7 31.Rf5 Ne5 32.Qg3+ Ng6
33.h4 Qxh4+ 34.Qxh4 Nxh4 35.Rxd5 Ng6 36.d4 Nf4 37.Rd7 Nd3 38.Rxb7 Nf2+ 39.Kg1 Ne4 40.Rxa7 Nd6
41.Bd5 h5 42.c4 Nf5 43.c5 Nxd4 44.c6 Nb5 45.Rb7 Nd6 46.Rd7 Nc8 47.c7 Nb6 48.Rd8 Nc8
49.Bb7 Na7 50.c8=Q Nxc8 51.Rxc8 Rxc8 52.Bxc8

My own view is that, if I were Black, I would have felt that White had a small advantage by move 25 (due mainly to IQP), a big advantage by move 30 (IQP, pawn down, passive pieces), and by move 40 the game was completely lost (White has 4 connected passed pawns). I would have resigned after White's 37th.

Basil
27-07-2007, 10:55 AM
Suggest do what I would do!

-- Switch off emotionally, don't get aggro
-- YOU make a move every 3 days

Have fun - he or she should get the message!

Do this with similar OTB scenarios as well!

Desmond
27-07-2007, 11:12 AM
OTB I wouldn't have resigned at move 37. I think ...Nf2-g4 and Re8-e1 might have been worth a try. But yeah, that position at the end is just a waste of time to play out.

Aaron Guthrie
27-07-2007, 03:19 PM
OTB I would probably resign at the point of conversion of the pawns, which means move 51. In any scenario I would certainly not resign before I decided that I had no chance at swindling with some mating (or perpetuing) attack. This means I might resign once I decided that I had to undertake passive defence, which means I might resign once I have to run the knight back.

Spiny Norman
27-07-2007, 03:30 PM
heh heh ... thanks all ... anyway, you're all wrong! ... Black is still playing on ... I will post the final moves of this nail-biter in due course.

Aaron Guthrie
27-07-2007, 04:18 PM
heh heh ... thanks all ... anyway, you're all wrong!Assuming this means you stuffed this up, you realize that now no-one will ever resign against you again! ;)

Spiny Norman
27-07-2007, 04:40 PM
:hand: No stuff-ups! I think Black is playing for a stalemate. Somebody tell 'im 'e's dreamin'. ;)

Aaron Guthrie
27-07-2007, 04:42 PM
Ok, then I am not sure what we are wrong about, since you already stated that Black played on in the post which you presented the game in.

edit-Oh maybe you just meant (kiddingly) that Black ought resign at move 37 as per your suggestion.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2007, 04:53 PM
OTB I would probably resign at the point of conversion of the pawns, which means move 51. In any scenario I would certainly not resign before I decided that I had no chance at swindling with some mating (or perpetuing) attack. This means I might resign once I decided that I had to undertake passive defence, which means I might resign once I have to run the knight back.
I agree.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2007, 05:02 PM
Frosty v someone who doesn't know when to quit :P

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 c6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 (passive. 4. Nf3 d5 5. Bb3! dxe4? 6. Nxe5 +/-) 4... d5 5.exd5 cxd5 6.Bb3 Bb4 7.Bd2 0-0 8.Nge2 Nc6
9.a3 Bc5 10.0-0 Be6 11.Na4 Bd6 (If there is any advantage here, it is Black's. White correctly breaks up Black's centre next move) 12.f4 Bg4 13.h3 Bd7 14.fxe5 Bxe5 15.Bf4 Bxf4 16.Rxf4 Na5 (this decentralization helps White, and the exchanges remove logical minor piece defenders of the IQP. This means that Black becomes too tied down to oppose White's f-file play)
17.Ba2 Bxa4 18.Rxa4 Nc6 19.Kh1 Qd7 20.Rf4 Ne5 21.Qd2 Ng6 22.Rf2 (I would seriously consider 22. Rxf6 gxf6 23. Ng3 with ideas of Nh5/f5 and Qh6, Rf1. White will surely pick up the Pf5 and possibly the Pd5 with a continuing attack) 22... Rac8 23.Raf1 Rc6 24.c3 h6
25.Nd4 Rb6 26.Nf5 Kh7 27.Nxh6 (a logical conclusion to the powerful build-up on the f-file.) 27... gxh6 (Black has a lost game but not yet a resignable game, except maybe at top level) 28.Rxf6 Rxf6 29.Rxf6 Qe7 30.Qf2 Kg7 31.Rf5 Ne5 32.Qg3+ Ng6
33.h4 (33. Bxd5 not only wins a P but invites proper clergical blessing to the K-side party) 33... Qxh4+ 34.Qxh4 Nxh4 35.Rxd5 Ng6 36.d4 Nf4 37.Rd7 Nd3 38.Rxb7 Nf2+ 39.Kg1 Ne4 40.Rxa7 Nd6
41.Bd5 h5 42.c4 Nf5 43.c5 Nxd4 44.c6 Nb5 45.Rb7 Nd6 46.Rd7 Nc8 47.c7 Nb6 48.Rd8 Nc8
49.Bb7 Na7 50.c8=Q Nxc8 51.Rxc8 Rxc8 52.Bxc8

Spiny Norman
27-07-2007, 07:33 PM
edit-Oh maybe you just meant (kiddingly) that Black ought resign at move 37 as per your suggestion.
Yeah, that was it ... sorry, I was @ work and typing in a hurry ... :eek:

Jono, thanks for comments/annotations, much appreciated. I've been using the "correspondence" play to experiment with different openings ... so yes, this was a bit passive!

EDIT: We're up to move 58 now, position now looks like this, with Black to move, and I've just played b5:

8/1B6/Pk3p2/1P5p/8/8/6P1/6K1 b - - 0 58

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2007, 09:03 PM
I would have resigned after White's 37th.

Without having seen that comment (just playing through the game) I had independently reached exactly the same conclusion.

Maybe I would play on a bit longer OTB against a much lower rated opponent (let's say sub-1500 adult, rarely as I get in such positions against such) but I'm not even sure about that.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2007, 11:54 PM
8/1B6/Pk3p2/1P5p/8/8/6P1/6K1 b - - 0 58
If it were an informal game, it would be tempting to remove your B and say, I don't even need that B to clean up your pawns, while you can't touch mine, so why not quit this post-mortem equine flagellation. :P:evil:

Yeah, good idea to test openings in informal long games like this.

Spiny Norman
28-07-2007, 01:45 AM
heh heh ... yes, i thought about doing some "weird stuff" ... like placing the bishop on an undefended square and letting him take it, then capturing one of his remaining pawns, forcing his other pawn to take my g-pawn, then wandering around with my king for 20 or 30 moves (i.e. tracing out a 4-leaf clover with a king manoevre, that sort of thing). :P

In a moment of madness, I even thought about getting to a completely, ridiculously, overwhelmingly won position ... then offering a draw by triple repetition. :owned:

Rincewind
28-07-2007, 02:04 AM
heh heh ... yes, i thought about doing some "weird stuff" ... like placing the bishop on an undefended square and letting him take it, then capturing one of his remaining pawns, forcing his other pawn to take my g-pawn, then wandering around with my king for 20 or 30 moves (i.e. tracing out a 4-leaf clover with a king manoevre, that sort of thing). :P

In a moment of madness, I even thought about getting to a completely, ridiculously, overwhelmingly won position ... then offering a draw by triple repetition. :owned:

The following line demonstrates the overwhelming advantage you have, lets assume black plays something inane like Ka7

then ...

1. g4 hxg4 2.Bf3 gxf3 Kf2 and you win easily - after giving up a pawn and the bishop - provided you can double his two kingside pawns. ;)

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2007, 11:52 AM
I guess the question is what's the most artistic way to try to mate the fool from this position. OTB I would be trying to set up a checkmate in which I played g3, and forced his king back to b8 and stalemated it there, thus forcing him to play one of ...f4 and ...h4, allowing me to capture whichever pawn moved with my g-pawn. He would then be able to race the other one through, and queen (without check as white's king is on b6), but then I could play f8 or h8 =R mating. :owned:

Spiny Norman
29-07-2007, 08:51 AM
I've decided to go a different road. We got to this position:

1k6/1B6/P7/1P6/5K2/7P/8/8 w - - 0 65

so I played b6!!! and stalemated him, and sent him a rude PM.

Desmond
29-07-2007, 09:13 AM
Should got your king to c7 then mated him with b6.

CameronD
29-07-2007, 09:59 AM
Great!!!!

Now he's going to do this EVERY time hoping that the other guy stuffs up and stalmates. That's how people like that get started.

Garrett
29-07-2007, 10:24 AM
Should got your king to c7 then mated him with b6.

Black would have no move after Kc7.

Spiny Norman
29-07-2007, 02:41 PM
That's how people like that get started.
Perhaps. Won't bother me much, as I'm going to finish my remaining 2 games there and move on. Incidentally, one of my other games has this position (me as White, with Black to play). I'm thinking of resigning myself as a matter of principle.

r1b1kb1r/1p1p1p2/2nNn3/p3P1p1/3p3p/3B3P/PPP3PB/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 16

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2007, 06:14 PM
Perhaps. Won't bother me much, as I'm going to finish my remaining 2 games there and move on. Incidentally, one of my other games has this position (me as White, with Black to play). I'm thinking of resigning myself as a matter of principle.

r1b1kb1r/1p1p1p2/2nNn3/p3P1p1/3p3p/3B3P/PPP3PB/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 16
That would just reward their unsporting behaviour.

Basil
29-07-2007, 06:36 PM
In case you missed the sagacity first time around
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=162343&postcount=42

pax
30-07-2007, 12:22 PM
In correspondence, I'd consider resigning by about move 34. OTB I would play on a bit, but only because a few more moves only takes a few more minutes - But I definitely wouldn't bother after about 42 - by then it's just twisting the knife.

But Howard is right. Make your moves - it doesn't cost you any time actually thinking about it!

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2007, 01:03 PM
Have some fun with the loser. Let him be the one to get bored with his depressing position.