English Chess Forum

1) you eventually queen that extra pawn you didn't even need to advance, leading to stalemate as you haven't checked the position and the next legal move of the king probably.
2) It means the match is a draw, rather than in your favour.


Well it all happened tonight. I have an easy (and yet difficult) write up of the match report for the website tonight!

David Blower wrote: 3) you eventually queen that extra pawn you didn't even need to advance, leading to stalemate as you haven't checked the position and the next legal move of the king probably.

Stalemate tricks are always worth checking for. They saved Keith Arkell in his game against Dave Ledger last weekend at Torquay. The game is on the forum.

Yes I agree. If your opponent is going to advance an extra pawn they don't need to, you have every right to play for checkmate. NB this did not happen in my game.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Stalemate tricks are always worth checking for. They saved Keith Arkell in his game against Dave Ledger last weekend at Torquay. The game is on the forum.

Link:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 84#p108494

Well erm the match report has now being written. http://brewoodchess.webs.com/apps/blog/ ... shall-draw

Nice report David.

Sounds like sour grapes from Mr.Parker. If his opponent wasn't notating "all game", he had to complain at the time, not when his opponent got into his last 5 minutes. It's amazing how often I see this complaint!

Regarding the game, depending on the specific position I would definitely be tempted to queen the second pawn, two queens are usually easier to deliver checkmate with than queen+king at high speed! Of course you have to be careful though...

Andrew Bak wrote:Nice report David.

Sounds like sour grapes from Mr.Parker. If his opponent wasn't notating "all game", he had to complain at the time, not when his opponent got into his last 5 minutes. It's amazing how often I see this complaint!

Regarding the game, depending on the specific position I would definitely be tempted to queen the second pawn, two queens are usually easier to deliver checkmate with than queen+king at high speed! Of course you have to be careful though...

I would say Queen and Rook is easier. Less chance of a stalemate. Maybe even Two Rooks is the safest for high speed.

As a local resident, I should probably point out:

There is an extensive catalogue of incidents involving David Buckley.

The biggest chapter of this catalogue is for incidents in games involving his not recording of moves, or a refusal to notate.

Alex Holowczak wrote:As a local resident, I should probably point out:

There is an extensive catalogue of incidents involving David Buckley.

The biggest chapter of this catalogue is for incidents in games involving his not recording of moves, or a refusal to notate.

It could be worse, I once lost R & N v R on time when the match score was 2-2

I should probably also add: It's not the David Buckley who captains Bristol 4NCL!

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:Stalemate tricks are always worth checking for. They saved Keith Arkell in his game against Dave Ledger last weekend at Torquay. The game is on the forum.

Link:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 84#p108494

I think you have learned one of chess golden rules: when you have a big advantage in the game, never ever argue with your opponent nor discuss his complains; he has nothing to lose, you do; if you really have to talk to him during the game or at the end of it, tell him he is right, he was actually much better at that point during the game, he actually lost because of that annoying distraction, whatever, all complains of a losing opponent are always right; just checkmate him, sign the score sheet and leave as soon as possible.

If you expect to play competitive chess and only find nice people, if you cant stand an opponent you find unpleasant, then you should do something else with your free time, nobody has ever been offended while collecting stamps or butterflies.

In the unfortunate event, like your game, if instead you blunder and fail to win a won game, then learn the lesson above and accept your mistake; writing about it on a blog wont get you anywhere, after all from a certain point of view, you opponent succeeded, he saved a lost game... he got you this time... ranting on a blog wont make it hurt less...

I see a lot of this behaviour, just playing on to get a stalemate, not noting the move, getting in a squabble over the result and going off in a huff.

Ahh, the joys of Primary School chess!

I was winning a game at Coulsdon chess club but my opponent played on and manager to swindle me and get a draw.He was right to play on i was over confidant thought it be so easy and why wont he resign.It was my own fault he taught me a lesson which is to pay attention for the whole of the chess game! something i did pass on to Peter Junior.

Right well i am off to make a nice warm cup of coffee.

Andrew Bak wrote:
Nice report David.

Thanks. Although I was told to edit it by the club committee, and have duly edited it.

David Blower wrote: Thanks. Although I was told to edit it by the club committee, and have duly edited it.

I can see why they might have wanted edits, but if you have a player in your local league with a history of rule breaking by not scoring, you either have to protest or tolerate it. In turn the league controller(s) have to decide whether to tolerate it or apply sanctions.