I never get upset at people not resigning, as long as they are playing. On the other hand, abandoning games when you don't want to play any more is just plain wrong.
@Hedgehog1963 Hey, Stockfish doesn't resign in lost positions, and I don't throw my computer out the window in outrage.
When an opponent stalls in an objectively lost position (#-1 or -2), that's disrespectful and petty. But playing a game out to its conclusion is fine. I've gifted and been gifted draws in awful positions by accidental 3x repetition or stalemate many times before now.
@a_Tauri said in #10:
> In Japan, it is considered a sign of bad manners to blow your nose in public. In many other places, no, no one pay attention to it.
> Like all etiquettes, they are prescriptions that are not shared by everyone. Including the etiquette of resigning in a lost position, about which there is no universal agreement, far from it. Etiquettes vary with place, community, time.
> In the mid-nineteenth century, it was considered impolite to refuse a gambit. Can you imagine the scene? 1.e4, e5. 2.f4, d5. "Rude! Lack of sportsmanship!" ...
>
> Personally, I always resign because I lose interest when I know that only a glaring mistake by the opponent could save me; But if one wants to continue to the end, I repeat, what is the problem ? The extra one-two minutes that he makes you waste ? Seriously ? If his position is so desperate, how long does it take you to checkmate him ?
> Finish him and show that it was useless to continue. Because if, on the other hand, at the last minute he manages to get a stalmate or you make a blunder in turn ( and it happens not infrequently ), then he was right and you didn’t deserve to win...
>
> Sportsmanship is acknowledging defeat when it has been definitively accomplished. For example, complimenting your opponent, when the game is over.
> It is a lack of sportsmanship to abandon the game without resigning, because it means not accepting defeat.
> Not resigning in a lost position doesn’t means anything in itself. If one prefers to play until he gets checkmated, it’s his business.
Comparing blowing your nose in public to resigning in chess? Okay whatever. Not resigning a completely lost position is disrepectful and lame. Wrtting walls of text won't change that fact.
> In Japan, it is considered a sign of bad manners to blow your nose in public. In many other places, no, no one pay attention to it.
> Like all etiquettes, they are prescriptions that are not shared by everyone. Including the etiquette of resigning in a lost position, about which there is no universal agreement, far from it. Etiquettes vary with place, community, time.
> In the mid-nineteenth century, it was considered impolite to refuse a gambit. Can you imagine the scene? 1.e4, e5. 2.f4, d5. "Rude! Lack of sportsmanship!" ...
>
> Personally, I always resign because I lose interest when I know that only a glaring mistake by the opponent could save me; But if one wants to continue to the end, I repeat, what is the problem ? The extra one-two minutes that he makes you waste ? Seriously ? If his position is so desperate, how long does it take you to checkmate him ?
> Finish him and show that it was useless to continue. Because if, on the other hand, at the last minute he manages to get a stalmate or you make a blunder in turn ( and it happens not infrequently ), then he was right and you didn’t deserve to win...
>
> Sportsmanship is acknowledging defeat when it has been definitively accomplished. For example, complimenting your opponent, when the game is over.
> It is a lack of sportsmanship to abandon the game without resigning, because it means not accepting defeat.
> Not resigning in a lost position doesn’t means anything in itself. If one prefers to play until he gets checkmated, it’s his business.
Comparing blowing your nose in public to resigning in chess? Okay whatever. Not resigning a completely lost position is disrepectful and lame. Wrtting walls of text won't change that fact.
completely lost position - this is subjective and should be decided by the person on the losing end, not somebody getting uptight about a rather obscure bit of etiquette.
@Katoh1 said in #24:
> Comparing blowing your nose in public to resigning in chess?
It's not comparing, just showing on an example that these things can vary a lot with environment, time, country or culture. What is perfectly fine in one country can be unacceptable in another, what is perfectly fine today would be seen as extremely rude 100 years ago - and vice versa. And it's the same with chess. What is perfectly fine when playing with a friend in a pub would be unacceptable in an official tournament. Few decades ago, it was common to smoke at the chessboard during a high level match. Today it's strictly forbidden in any competition (and the very idea seems weird to most players).
> Not resigning a completely lost position is disrepectful and lame.
What is "completely lost" is highly subjective.
> Comparing blowing your nose in public to resigning in chess?
It's not comparing, just showing on an example that these things can vary a lot with environment, time, country or culture. What is perfectly fine in one country can be unacceptable in another, what is perfectly fine today would be seen as extremely rude 100 years ago - and vice versa. And it's the same with chess. What is perfectly fine when playing with a friend in a pub would be unacceptable in an official tournament. Few decades ago, it was common to smoke at the chessboard during a high level match. Today it's strictly forbidden in any competition (and the very idea seems weird to most players).
> Not resigning a completely lost position is disrepectful and lame.
What is "completely lost" is highly subjective.
@Katoh1 said in #24:
> Not resigning a completely lost position is disrepectful and lame. Wrtting walls of text won't change that fact.
I apologize for the following writting wall of text, but words are used to express our thoughts. When these are more articulated, more words are needed.
What does "completely lost position" mean, exactly ?
K+Q vs K, maybe ? It has happened to me several times in this situation, having K+Q, and taking the stalmate.
Maybe K+R vs K ? There is no risk of stalmate, yet on a couple of occasions I have succeeded ( due to fatigue, or lack of concentration ) in the great feat of not being able to checkmate within 50 moves.
On these cases and others, I have not been able to realize my "totally winning position", so I obviously didn't deserve to win, so... what disrespect are we talking about ?? My opponents were right to continue ! They tested my actual ability to bring home the victory, and found that I wasn't capable of it. It happens.
My ego doesn't get hurt if my opponent doesn't take it for granted that I win when I'm in decisive advantage. We are playing chess, my honour or my intelligence is not in question. And neither is my skill, since as a chessplayer I am nothing special.
> Not resigning a completely lost position is disrepectful and lame. Wrtting walls of text won't change that fact.
I apologize for the following writting wall of text, but words are used to express our thoughts. When these are more articulated, more words are needed.
What does "completely lost position" mean, exactly ?
K+Q vs K, maybe ? It has happened to me several times in this situation, having K+Q, and taking the stalmate.
Maybe K+R vs K ? There is no risk of stalmate, yet on a couple of occasions I have succeeded ( due to fatigue, or lack of concentration ) in the great feat of not being able to checkmate within 50 moves.
On these cases and others, I have not been able to realize my "totally winning position", so I obviously didn't deserve to win, so... what disrespect are we talking about ?? My opponents were right to continue ! They tested my actual ability to bring home the victory, and found that I wasn't capable of it. It happens.
My ego doesn't get hurt if my opponent doesn't take it for granted that I win when I'm in decisive advantage. We are playing chess, my honour or my intelligence is not in question. And neither is my skill, since as a chessplayer I am nothing special.
@a_Tauri said in #27:
> I apologize for the following writting wall of text, but words are used to express our thoughts. When these are more articulated, more words are needed.
>
> What does "completely lost position" mean, exactly ?
> K+Q vs K, maybe ? It has happened to me several times in this situation, having K+Q, and taking the stalmate.
> Maybe K+R vs K ? There is no risk of stalmate, yet on a couple of occasions I have succeeded ( due to fatigue, or lack of concentration ) in the great feat of not being able to checkmate within 50 moves.
> On these cases and others, I have not been able to realize my "totally winning position", so I obviously didn't deserve to win, so... what disrespect are we talking about ?? My opponents were right to continue ! They tested my actual ability to bring home the victory, and found that I wasn't capable of it. It happens.
>
> My ego doesn't get hurt if my opponent doesn't take it for granted that I win when I'm in decisive advantage. We are playing chess, my honour or my intelligence is not in question. And neither is my skill, since as a chessplayer I am nothing special.
If you are playing against a weak opponent or if your opponent is low on time sure play on I've nothing against it.
> I apologize for the following writting wall of text, but words are used to express our thoughts. When these are more articulated, more words are needed.
>
> What does "completely lost position" mean, exactly ?
> K+Q vs K, maybe ? It has happened to me several times in this situation, having K+Q, and taking the stalmate.
> Maybe K+R vs K ? There is no risk of stalmate, yet on a couple of occasions I have succeeded ( due to fatigue, or lack of concentration ) in the great feat of not being able to checkmate within 50 moves.
> On these cases and others, I have not been able to realize my "totally winning position", so I obviously didn't deserve to win, so... what disrespect are we talking about ?? My opponents were right to continue ! They tested my actual ability to bring home the victory, and found that I wasn't capable of it. It happens.
>
> My ego doesn't get hurt if my opponent doesn't take it for granted that I win when I'm in decisive advantage. We are playing chess, my honour or my intelligence is not in question. And neither is my skill, since as a chessplayer I am nothing special.
If you are playing against a weak opponent or if your opponent is low on time sure play on I've nothing against it.
@forsoothplays said in 18:
"I think it is appropriate to gently encourage the opponent to resign in the chat, or troll them a little..."
I do not think that this is appropriate. It is the online equivalent of over-the-board intimidation.
"I think it is appropriate to gently encourage the opponent to resign in the chat, or troll them a little..."
I do not think that this is appropriate. It is the online equivalent of over-the-board intimidation.
I say that if your opponent is not resigning, even if they are completely losing, they are still trying to fight, they aren't giving up, and that's the sign of a good opponent who always has hope