Would that be a self-help-not-mate, Bill?
Many, many years ago there was a yearly 12-round, G/30 (I think) “marathon” tournament in New Hampshire in which rounds stretched overnight Saturday and into Sunday.
A frequent participant was a well-known “character” of expert strength who would travel to New England to play.
The story goes that one year he was paired against a 1000-player, and underpromoted until he had eight knights.
And then accidentally stalemated his opponent.
Sounds like he deserved it.
I love it when the punishment not only suits the crime, but is inherent in the crime.
Bill Smythe
It might be considered rude to play on against a stronger player in a hopeless position with no real chance of even a swindle. It might be rude to torture a much weaker player who lacks even the strength to know when it’s hopeless. But against a roughly comparable opponent who is playing on just to be ornery? A bit of torture seems like an amusing way to impart a lesson. As long as one makes legal moves and doesn’t try to annoy the opponent with antics OFF the board, it’s really nobody else’s business.
Over the last five decades of playing tournament chess, I have met all kinds of players with good and bad attitudes toward the game. More than a few players have been taught to play on all the way to mate. As an old mentor said, “Everyone has the right to be checkmated.” If you play against someone who plays on beyond what you think necessary, treat him with respect and finish the game as efficiently as possible. He may want and need to see how it is done. I once played a person who said he wanted to have a good example of how a master wins a game to show to his kids in school. After the game, I analyzed with him and showed him ways he could have put up greater resistance, even in an allegedly “hopeless” positions. He appreciated how much he learned. We are still friends after all of these years. Treat such games as an opportunity to practice what we call “technique”. Good GMs are respectful of their opponents. Why not be like them? Nobody buys dinners for jerks.
I have played arrogant, sadistic players who enjoy inflicting pain and humiliation on lower rated players. These are people of low general character. There are a couple of players who asked me to resign before the game began. I did not say anything. I did not bang any pieces and played quietly and patiently to dismantle their positions. Someone asked me if I was mad at one guy since I have beaten him over twenty times in a row. I told him no, but the guy was a motivator to study all of his openings, his style of play, his psychology. It was an aid to my preparation to know that he was arrogant and dismissive of other players who he considered his inferiors. You do not have any problem getting up to play him. He has no idea how many people who consider him an enemy because of his arrogance. So, if you have sadistic tendencies, know that those around you will work very hard to beat you, harder than they will against other players. They will never give up and play on and on to make the little sadist sit there huffing about the temerity of playing on against his magnificence. When he underpromotes, they do not quit. He has stalemated some players by getting fancy, which justifies his opponents playing on against him.
Ignore the rating. Treat all players with respect. Players of good character will treat you the same, and may just resign earlier because they appreciate your game and trust your technique.
I agree with the substance of the comment, in that there comes a time in a player’s development when a player should learn when it is time to resign. Or ask for a draw, come to that.
But it’s also rather insulting to assume that new or lower-rated players who might play on for the educational value involved are lumped in with an “under 10 years old” crowd. Sorry to point it out, but my personal ox got gored - I didn’t learn the rules of chess until age 15 and wasn’t in a position to understand how to really start learning the game until age 37.
Bringing that full circle and as to the OP… I remember a game in between those two ages where, despite my being very frank that I was a rank beginner an opponent was really hurt because I missed an objectively obvious mate in 1 and thought I was toying with him. He did end up believing that I really didn’t see that there was a mate in front of my eyes. But back then the only way I knew how to surely win was to take away all my opponent’s material before going in for a kill, and thought that’s what was necessary.
Today I still find myself sometimes resigning in positions where I am not anywhere near as lost as I think I was.
Is it rude to unnecessarily continue a game on either side? It’s rude to humiliate anybody unnecessarily, and it’s rude to force someone into a position where they must obtain mate when you already know they can. But learning how to win with conserved material or know when your opponent absolutely can checkmate you is a learned skill, too. How do you prove that someone knows better?
After resigning a non-losing position is about the only time players will try to prove, in the post-mortem, that they were NOT winning.
Bill Smythe
Instead of 4 queens just mate them in the corner. has the same effect and isn’t so obviously trolling.
Last rated tournament I played in, I had a more than winning advantage for many moves. Hopeless for him. I kept waiting for hims to resign. (I was later told that he never resigns, ever. Nice guy, it’s his game.)
Trying to win quickly, efficiently, and safely, I advanced my king to the center of the board (Queens long gone, each side had one rook, I was up one or two pieces.)
I placed my king safely in the center of an open looking board. No visual danger at all.
Right into checkmate in one. So there’s that.