He was rated 200 points higher than me at the start of the game if ever there was an opponent that could recover from such a loss, it was he. I wasn't even given the opportunity to capture the Queen he brought the Queen into my territory, I played the first move of a three-move sequence that would capture the Queen, and he immediately saw his fate and resigned. My "best win" (in terms of rating) was a game in which a much more higly-rated opponent was quickly punished for being overly aggressive with his Queen.
Many people feel that playing on and hoping for a colossal blunder from your opponent is rude. If you've been playing chess long enough to know what playing from behind feels like, then no one has anything to gain. If you lose your Queen without compensation, there is little to play for if not educational value. The Queen *is* your most powerful piece (in terms of power, the King is often said to be worth about 4 points), but it is (technically) not as *valuable* as the King. Remember the queen is not your most powerful piece because if u lose the king. My blunder had just turned into a brilliant sacrifice (ok I admit I didn't even know I was offering it when I make the move) and it ended in his resignation a few moves later.Īlways take a long hard look at the chances before you tip the king over.
I was devastated by the mistake, but a moment later i realized, however, that if he grabbed the rook he was seriously opening his king position for attack. In another recent game I made a pawn move, only to realize afterward that it allowed my opponent to fork my king and a rook with his bishop and win the exchange. Evaluate the position and see if there is anything left. However, don't resign as a knee jerk reaction. We traded a couple of notes after the game, and he was very gracious about it.Īs far as being a queen down, unless you have a very strong attack as compensation, the material gap would be decisive.
I lose a game so i quit meme free#
My opponent picked up a couple of rating points, and was free to find someone who could give him a real game. It clearly wasn't in the proper frame of mind for a game. I recently resigned a game after making two blunders back to back, one for a pawn, the next for a rook. For the vast majority of people, it's just not gonna happen.
She is so powerful!!! OMG Look I have 3 Queens!!! My Knight is so tricky!!!Īs an aside, it's crazy watching some GM games where all they need is a slight positional advantage and/or slight tempo lead to play for a win: they don't even need a pawn advantage to secure the win! For them, playing with a Queen down is like having to take down an F18 fighter jet while being armed with only a pocket knife, a paperclip, and a rubberband. Once you step out of beginner territory, you lose all those personal attachments you have with pieces, i.e. Modern chess is all about winning, any way you can. If you have two tournament-strength players sitting down to a game, and you remove 2 pawns or a Knight/Bishop from the board before the game even begins, the side with the material advantage will win well over 90% of the time. It has nothing to do with a particular attachment to any specific piece. Well, the idea behind resigning when you lose your Queen is quite simple: once you reach the level of about 1500-1600, a 2-3 point advantage in material = automatic win, so losing your Queen is equivalent to you being 4-9 points down = pointless massacre, so you resign.
0 kommentar(er)
