Big difference between blundering your queen and giving it up for a gambit.
For example Hikaru got the enemy king out in the open and stopped them from castling. It wasn’t a free queen.
Most ~2000 players can play the standard openings. Giving up your queen for a position that you understand better than your opponent is an advantage. That’s the whole point of gambits.
If I knew my opponent knew a gambit then it would be dumb to play it against them because the gambit is going to get me nowhere. The gambit turns into a standard game going into the end game and depending on the gambit I might be worse off, it’s not going to give me an advantage.
But I agree with you that you should never just resign because you “blundered” your queen. That’s just poor thinking.
Though when Magnus Carlson does it, the insult is deliberate, but he’s got the skills to back it up. Like “go ahead and develop, I’m just going to spend the first 10 moves sending my king on a meandering path that just ends up swapping king and queen’s positions and then I’ll win anyways”.
Fwiw, I also think the idea that someone should resign after a mistake is silly. If you want to take offense that I think there’s a chance either I could come back or you’ll make a similar impact mistake of your own, then go ahead and be offended and beat me if you can. Getting pissed off about that might just make you more sloppy anyways.
Hell, I’d even go so far as to say that the act of getting offended they don’t resign is a tactic to get them to resign in the first place. And makes for more boring games because seeing games to completion is interesting.
I just thought the image of it applying to this specific case where a master plays against a novice and resigns after letting them gain an advantage was funny. Of course the son would have wanted to keep playing when he was finally up a queen. The deadpan didn’t land, but that’s a risk I accepted when I embraced dryer humour. I’m not going to resign.
You lost to a 500 player just because you blundered your queen? Smells like someone is not a 3000 rated player
I am assuming “I am 3000” is the chess equivalent of “I bench 400.”
Any stat shared online should be multiplied by 0.6 or so to get the real number.
If you blunder your queen and don’t immediately resign, some chess players see that as a huge insult.
Not if your rating difference is astronomic. See hikaru for instance (https://youtu.be/yBAghpuH4gs)
Guy makes it to 2500+ without a queen and I believe his online rating is around 3300
Big difference between blundering your queen and giving it up for a gambit.
For example Hikaru got the enemy king out in the open and stopped them from castling. It wasn’t a free queen.
Most ~2000 players can play the standard openings. Giving up your queen for a position that you understand better than your opponent is an advantage. That’s the whole point of gambits.
If I knew my opponent knew a gambit then it would be dumb to play it against them because the gambit is going to get me nowhere. The gambit turns into a standard game going into the end game and depending on the gambit I might be worse off, it’s not going to give me an advantage.
But I agree with you that you should never just resign because you “blundered” your queen. That’s just poor thinking.
Though when Magnus Carlson does it, the insult is deliberate, but he’s got the skills to back it up. Like “go ahead and develop, I’m just going to spend the first 10 moves sending my king on a meandering path that just ends up swapping king and queen’s positions and then I’ll win anyways”.
Fwiw, I also think the idea that someone should resign after a mistake is silly. If you want to take offense that I think there’s a chance either I could come back or you’ll make a similar impact mistake of your own, then go ahead and be offended and beat me if you can. Getting pissed off about that might just make you more sloppy anyways.
Hell, I’d even go so far as to say that the act of getting offended they don’t resign is a tactic to get them to resign in the first place. And makes for more boring games because seeing games to completion is interesting.
I just thought the image of it applying to this specific case where a master plays against a novice and resigns after letting them gain an advantage was funny. Of course the son would have wanted to keep playing when he was finally up a queen. The deadpan didn’t land, but that’s a risk I accepted when I embraced dryer humour. I’m not going to resign.