i apologize for not communicating my point clearly enough
my 3 reasons applies to both white and black. i see no reason for either player to continue in this manner.
black can hope for three-fold repition, stalemate or disconnect. i find no enjoyment in obtaining invisible internet points in this way, but i understand many do.
i think that:
1) one should play for mate in a won position
2) one should resign in a lost position
i'm not dogmatic about this, there are plenty of Good Reasons to play on and everyone have their own standards, but in principle this is in my opinion what we should strive for.
"And about No.1. He punish me, because he is not resigning the game. That hurts me. He thinks i am to stupid to win KQQQQ vs. K. That let me think that he think that I am an idiot who can not checkmate a lonesome king on the free field. Thats really a hart hit for my ego."
he isn't necessarily unjustified to think so. remember that a stalemate is awarded the same half points as a draw. it is surprisingly easy to stalemate when playing with a surplus of powerful pieces.
#22
sure that can happen in a fast game, but with plenty of time left? Not really.
btw. i played a lot otb games the last 20 years, with long time controls. But i remember only two of them. One i lost against a IM on time. Fritz said my advantage was +8 at one move. The chance of my chesslife i think. And the second was a game like we here discuss.
It was the first round of the tourney, played on an friday evening. I came directly from work. The next round was the next day, 9 o'clock and i had to drive about an hour (one way)
After 7 moves i won a piece. My rating was about 600 point higher than his. What ever, instead of resigning he made move after move. Later in the game i had an rook ending with a plus of three connected freepawns. But he moved and moved.
The game went futher, until he had only his king and two squares left to move on,a6 and a7. It was nearly midnight and i said: "i checkmate you with a bishop."
His response was: "You dont have one", and the moves 51.... Ka7 52....Ka6 53.... Ka7 54....Ka6 55.... Ka7 56....Ka6 57.g8B(!!) Ka7 58....Ka6 59. f5 with the idea f6-7-8B and then double bishop checkmate on either on a6 or a7. But he resigned - not to early - after my 59th move. In my opinion 3 houres to late.
I never forget this game.
#21 I happen to feel strongly about 2) precisely because of OTB situations like that described in #23. I don't feel strongly about 1) because if my opponent toys with me I always have the option to resign.
You can simply resign. But understand your opponent who just wants to draw out the pleasure haha.
I agree with DingDongMcNasty. One can lose or draw from a winning position if it is not handled correctly, so it does make sense to consider for a while. Although messing around trying to get four queens, for example, is poor form in my opinion - although by that time, the losing player should have resigned.
To #1
I know that sometimes when I have an overwhelming winning-is-a-sure-thing advantage like you describe, I take extra care to be sure I don't cause a stalemate and throw it all away.
FYI, other players complain about the guy that keeps moving his King around when he's clearly "lost" the game.
Well, as I mentioned, the stalemate thing. But, there is also hoping to rescue a "win" by causing the "winning" player to time out.
And, I think that this is a perfectly valid tactic.
If the "winning" player can't put you away within the time limit, tough.
The lone king can't win. Not even on time.
To #18
3 Knights is amazing!!!
"The lone king can't win. Not even on time." Technically yes, but it can be considered a "win" for a lone king to draw.
