Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:27 am |
|
|
GeneralsRank |
King |
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2004 |
Posts: 112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should you sacrafice a queen that will allow you to advance a pawn to have 3 rooks on the board? btw the opponent does not have a queen or rook just a Knight and 2 bishops..(endgame) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:21 pm |
|
|
Steve Lopez |
Moderator |
|
|
Joined: 25 Aug 2003 |
Posts: 819 |
Location: Maryland |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GeneralsRank wrote: | Should you sacrafice a queen that will allow you to advance a pawn to have 3 rooks on the board? btw the opponent does not have a queen or rook just a Knight and 2 bishops..(endgame) |
Why bother? You already have a Queen and two Rooks -- why sac the Queen to "gain" a third Rook? The question makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:04 pm |
|
|
kansasjohn5 |
Pawn |
|
|
Joined: 28 Apr 2005 |
Posts: 13 |
Location: Kansas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
That would give you less than what you already have. That is a simple endgame, just mate them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 10:31 pm |
|
|
Crusader Bishop |
Pawn |
|
|
Joined: 08 May 2005 |
Posts: 7 |
Location: U.N.-Occupied New York |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is hilarious. If I were you I would sacrifice all my material and then march my pawns to promotion and mate with Knight and Bishop. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:39 pm |
|
|
lionel |
King |
|
|
Joined: 10 Jun 2004 |
Posts: 233 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually there is a famous(ish) game where the final position was:
one side: all pieces on their original squares, none lost, but no pawns.
other side: nothing left but a free-range king.
It happened because one player, in a truly lost position, refused to resign. The other therefore swapped off or promoted pawns until he had a full complement of pieces and no pawns, and amassed his army back on their original squares, simply to illustrate the silliness of his opponent! I have no idea who was deemed to have won.
I cannot remember who were the two miscreants; I just remember seeing it as a "how did this happen?" puzzle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 5:32 pm |
|
|
Spongebob666 |
Rook |
|
|
Joined: 04 Aug 2004 |
Posts: 95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once or twice when an opponents refusal to resign got under my skin, I tried to see how many queens I could get.
It does get challenging to not stalemate your opponent. I managed 5 queens in a speed game. Never had enough extra pawns to try for 6.
I am a fairly gracious person normally and I did worry that I was being rude. However, if your opponent is playing on in a clearly totally and hopelessly lost position then probably all he wants is a chance at flagging you or stalemate, and thats exactly what your giving him. Stalemate is a real risk. Plus, he is free to resign at any time.
I would think restoring the original piece configuration would be 100x harder than 5 queens. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:41 am |
|
|
c1arinetboy |
Newbie |
|
|
Joined: 15 Nov 2005 |
Posts: 3 |
Location: Phoenix, AZ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spongebob666 wrote: | Once or twice when an opponents refusal to resign got under my skin, I tried to see how many queens I could get.
It does get challenging to not stalemate your opponent. I managed 5 queens in a speed game. Never had enough extra pawns to try for 6.
|
I do that too ! And I did manage 6 queens one time . I'll have to make it a goal to do something like 8 knights next time... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:59 pm |
|
|
sir_guy |
Pawn |
|
|
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 |
Posts: 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Lopez wrote: | GeneralsRank wrote: | Should you sacrafice a queen that will allow you to advance a pawn to have 3 rooks on the board? btw the opponent does not have a queen or rook just a Knight and 2 bishops..(endgame) |
Why bother? You already have a Queen and two Rooks -- why sac the Queen to "gain" a third Rook? The question makes no sense to me. |
It might only make sense if he's looking for some kind of aesthetic checkmate or the position is one of those extremely rare ones where it's prudent to sacrifice the queen (for a rook promotion) in order to avoid stalemate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:33 am |
|
|
ShadowSong |
Pawn |
|
|
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 |
Posts: 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to have 9 queens on the board without stalemating or checkmating?
Quote: | It might only make sense if he's looking for some kind of aesthetic checkmate or the position is one of those extremely rare ones where it's prudent to sacrifice the queen (for a rook promotion) in order to avoid stalemate. |
It would still be a winning advantage... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:43 pm |
|
|
Molloy |
Newbie |
|
|
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 |
Posts: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah this is sort of completely opposite the famous game with all of the original pieces, but I once only had my king and seven pawns, my opponent had the same number of pieces but had a rook and a bishop in place of two pawns, and I just pushed two of my pawns and my king, where they were always defended and kept pushing back her bishop and rook until I captured them on her side, got two queens, and checkmated her. That was for my school championship, to see who would go to the regionals, and she said I got lucky, but then I went and won the regionals^^ I just wish I had the notations of the game. |
|
|
|
|
The ChessExchange Forum Index -> Gambits |
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
|
|
|
|