Chess Etiquette

Originally posted by Bull McCabe
Yes; in the case of players of fairly equal strengh I disagree

Then why did you resign this game Game 8570184 ?

It ultimately comes down to a question of why you are playing the game. If you are playing here on RHP to win, and this matters to your ego, then by all means play on in a lost position. Your opponent may make a mistake or time out. But you shouldn't bother asking for a rematch, because you've left a bad impression. If you are playing here to have fun, and want the people you are playing with to have fun, concede the lost position and ask for a rematch. It's no more fun playing an obviously won position than it is playing an obviously lost position.

Now if you are in a tournament and you are in the running for a prize, it's perfectly reasonable to play on in a lost position.

Personally, I'm here to have fun, and maybe learn some chess. I have resigned games on other sites where I had the won position, but my opponent was dragging it on.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Actually, if I were playing Anand, and I ended up with K&R v his K, then it would be bad manners for him not to resign, even at my modest level of chess.

The best post in the history of RHP😀

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Actually, if I were playing Anand, and I ended up with K&R v his K, then it would be bad manners for him not to resign, even at my modest level of chess.

I would love to test this myself, but Anand consistently avoids me -dodges me completely- by playing in only high category tournaments where he knows there is no danger of being paired against me.

Completely within the rules, of course, but very unsporting in my opinion.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I would love to test this myself, but Anand consistently avoids me -dodges me completely- by playing in only high category tournaments where he knows there is no danger of being paired against me.

Completely within the rules, of course, but very unsporting in my opinion.

Of course Anand and Gelfand would never resign against each other because they are of fairly equal strength. Look how they've dragged these past few games on playing to the bitter end even when it was mate in 1 hoping their opponent would be struck down by lightning. If they were playing in the open air I could understand it.

I still think some people are mixing up two situations.

The first is where the position is objectively "lost" but there is still a chance (even if remote) of salvaging something. For example, I might play on against a low ranked player in blitz where they have Q&K to my K if they were running out of time and might stalemate me or lose on time. I can't see any problem in this. The fact that they have gained an overwhelming advantage does not exempt them from showing they can deliver mate in time.

The other is where there is no conceivable (within reason) chance of winning or getting a stalemate. If you play on to protect rankings in some way, just to be bloody minded, or in the hope that your opponent may fall ill and be unable to continue, then that is poor etiquette.

The relative abilities of the players is not relevant to the principle. It is relevant to when the point is reached when there is no conceivable chance of winning or drawing.

This, of course, is subjective and requires judgment. Rather like good manners.

(I have climbed down off my soapbox now) 🙂

Originally posted by thaughbaer
Of course Anand and Gelfand would never resign against each other because they are of fairly equal strength. Look how they've dragged these past few games on playing to the bitter end even when it was mate in 1 hoping their opponent would be struck down by lightning. If they were playing in the open air I could understand it.

Ironically, Susan Polgar thought that Gelfand should not have resigned in Game 8. I know I wouldn't have if I had been playing someone of equal strength.

(Actually, I would, as I wouldn't have seen the knight sac )

🙁

Originally posted by Rank outsider
It doesn't matter who the opponent is. If you think you can win, or squeak a draw, I have no beef in you playing on. If there is no prospect of this happening (and you must decide this) then you should resign.

The problem here is "and you must decide this". In a game between two people of my playing, ahem, quality, being a piece down is not reason to resign, as I've proven more than once. Being a piece up is no reason to consider the game won already, and I've proven that, as well.

We're talking about a game between two sub-1200s here - being caught in the middle of the board is no reason to resign, your opponent can still blunder away a rook!

Against a grandmaster, of course, it's different. Sure. But we're not among grandmasters, here. We're among patzers, sub-patzers, and a very occasional slightly-over-patzer. (We once had a NM, I think, but he hasn't posted for ages.) Who are we to get angry because our opponents haven't noticed that their game has been in its last throes from 1. e4 on? And who are we to get aggravated that our opponent makes use of the rules of the site when we ourselves do not notice our clock running down?

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow BlueBut we're not among grandmasters, here. We're among patzers, sub-patzers, and a very occasional slightly-over-patzer. (We once had a NM, I think, but he hasn't posted for ages.)

There are plenty of players on this site who are stronger than the US National Master standard. Quite a few of them post on the chess forum as well. I've never held that particular title in very high regard because it is a lifetime award. Indeed, I think that once someone has become a NM their rating floor becomes 2200, which encourages rating inflation when that player is no longer so strong.

We are swinging from 'I had my skull crushed' to when players should resign.

There are players here who think resigning is bad manners.
They continue in all good faith and actually think resigning a game
before getting mated is a form of sulking.

Live and let live.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
We are swinging from 'I had my skull crushed' to when players should resign.

There are players here who think resigning is bad manners.
They continue in all good faith and actually think resigning a game
before getting mated is a form of sulking.

Live and let live.

That's fine but the point is don't write this "What's the point in winning games that you didn't, you know, win? The opponent in question was about to lose, being down to 3 pawns or so versus my queen +++. I don't think that's right and I wouldn't do it, I don't care how fast you like to play and I generally do." when there are skeletons in the closet. It only takes 1 RHPer with 5 minutes to spare to catch you out.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
We are swinging from 'I had my skull crushed' to when players should resign.

There are players here who think resigning is bad manners.
They continue in all good faith and actually think resigning a game
before getting mated is a form of sulking.

Live and let live.

Live and let die!

The best I have found within minutes:

YouTube

I am sure there are better once. Anyway a classic.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
Then why did you resign this game Game 8570184 ?

I would think this is quite an easy win for white. The only way black can stop him promoting is to sacrifice the pieces and then white's rook cleans up. This is not the point. I have argued that it is up to the player when he resigns. I myself will resign as soon as I feel the game is losing. I do not expect the same from my opponent

Originally posted by Bull McCabe
I would think this is quite an easy win for white. The only way black can stop him promoting is to sacrifice the pieces and then white's rook cleans up. This is not the point. I have argued that it is up to the player when he resigns. I myself will resign as soon as I feel the game is losing. I do not expect the same from my opponent

If you want to present an argument you should remember what you write from one post to the next. Not 5 minutes ago you were arguing that even in a losing position players of fairly equal strength should carry on. Now you say you will resign as soon as you are losing. Which is it exactly ? I suspect it's pointless to ask.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
If you want to present an argument you should remember what you write from one post to the next. Not 5 minutes ago you were arguing that even in a losing position players of fairly equal strength should carry on. Now you say you will resign as soon as you are losing. Which is it exactly ? I suspect it's pointless to ask.

I did not say they should carry on. I defended their right to do so if they so wished