On 15 Mar 2004 06:14:27 -0800, (KidDon) wrote:

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
Some years ago I was playing in a non-rated team match. The opposing
team consisted of scholastic players. I was recruited to play first
board for the Lynchburg team because our team was short one player.

I played a nice combination and won a piece in the opening. I was
thinking about having the game published. However, my opponent refused
to resign. He just kept playing. Finally, I was two rooks up and still
he refused to resign. By now, the game was so long that no chess
magazine would ever publish it. I got mad and started to get angry
with my opponent. Finally, I won his queen too. Then, he resigned. By
then the game had dragged on for 40 moves and was far too long to be
published.

I complained to his coach (his team had a professional coach who was a
well known chess master) about the fact that his player had refused to
resign even though he was two rooks down. The coach explained that he
had told his team players not to resign unless they were at least a
queen down. This explained why he had not resigned when he was two
rooks down but did resign when I won his queen.

In this match, we had to play two games. I got so mad about this that
I played carelessly in the second game and lost.

Sam Sloan
________________________________
That is what many scholastic chess coaches instruct their kids for
scholastic tournaments, especially those with shorter time controls;
the reason being that every 1/2 pt. can help in the team standings,
and as long as the player has a queen on the board against another
scholastic opponent, he/she may be able to force perpetual check or
otherwise secure a draw. In my opinion, such an instruction should not
be given in a tournament that includes adult players, nor should it be
given in the higher levels of scholastics (i.e. players rated @ 1200 -
2200+).

Kiddon

Since several people have asked here is the game. My opponent was a
1900 player. His coach was Rusty Potter, a well known chess master. In
this game, first I won the exchange. Then, on move 28, I won a knight,
leaving me a rook up. This is where I felt he should have resigned.
After that, on move 32, I won another rook. Now, it was ridiculous for
him to play on. Finally, on move 40 I won his queen. This left him in
a king and queen vs, king endgame. I guess he figured that I knew how
to mate with a queen and therefore he resigned.

[Event "Pulaski-Lynchburg Match"]
[Site "Lynchburg, Virginia"]
[Date "1986.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sloan, Sam"]
[Black "Shelton, Jeffrey"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A00"]

1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 c6 3.h3 e5 4.e4 d4 5.d3 Be6 6.Ne2 c5 7.f4 Nc6 8.Nd2
Qh4+ 9.Kf1 exf4 10.Nf3 Qf6 11.Bxf4 h6 12.Qd2 O-O-O 13.Re1 c4
14.a3 Nge7 15.e5 Qg6 16.Nh4 Qh7 17.Be4 g6 18.Kg2 Bg7 19.Nf3 Bd5
20.Nfxd4 Nxd4 21.Nxd4 Bxe4+ 22.Rxe4 f5 23.exf6 Bxf6 24.Ne6 Nd5
25.Rxc4+ Kd7 26.Nxd8 Bxd8 27.Rd4 Qf7 28.c4 Kc8 29.cxd5 Bb6 30.Re4
g5 31.Qc3+ Kd7 32.Qxh8 gxf4 33.Rf1 Qxd5 34.Qe8+ Kc7 35.Rc1+ Bc5
36.Qe7+ Kb6 37.Rxc5 Qxc5 38.Rb4+ Kc6 39.Rc4 b6 40.Rxc5+ 1-0

Sam Sloan