It's rude not to resign in a situation where the best you can get is a draw. Anybody that continues to play on in a rook and king vs. king endgame is a jerk. Anybody that plays on in hopeless situations is also a jerk. Don't be rude, have some class, resign when it's lost.
Originally posted by cmsMaster It's rude not to resign in a situation where the best you can get is a draw. Anybody that continues to play on in a rook and king vs. king endgame is a jerk. Anybody that plays on in hopeless situations is also a jerk. Don't be rude, have some class, resign when it's lost.
Thank you!
I was beginning to think I was some kind of jerk for bringing the point up in the first place.
Originally posted by cmsMaster It's rude not to resign in a situation where the best you can get is a draw. Anybody that continues to play on in a rook and king vs. king endgame is a jerk. Anybody that plays on in hopeless situations is also a jerk. Don't be rude, have some class, resign when it's lost.
Well an explanation for why would be nice...I don't see how it makes any sense to play on when you have lost. ESPECIALLY when you are down to nothing but your king. For example, lets say I am playing you. You have a king. I have a queen and a king. I have obviously played a better game up to this point. Now you are hoping that I will somehow blunder and force stalemate, that way you get a draw. Why else would you continue? Obviously you won't learn from the experience, after all, what can you learn by moving your king out of checks? You aren't playing to win, because you can't, and if you are playing to anger your opponent, then you are definately a jerk. So, instead of admitting defeat, and being respectful to your opponent who had played a superior game to you, you continue on to get some type of "revenge" or "lucky draw". Why? Why, would anybody do this except to be a jerk? Wouldn't you appreciate it if they resigned in this situation if you had the queen and king and they only had the king?
Originally posted by cmsMaster Well an explanation for why would be nice...I don't see how it makes any sense to play on when you have lost. ESPECIALLY when you are down to nothing but your king. For example, lets say I am playing you. You have a king. I have a queen and a king. I have obviously played a better game up to this point. Now you are hoping that I will somehow blunder ...[text shortened]... ey resigned in this situation if you had the queen and king and they only had the king?
If you're able to win in that situation, I don't see the problem. There is never a point when somebody has to resign.
Originally posted by cmsMaster It's rude not to resign in a situation where the best you can get is a draw. Anybody that continues to play on in a rook and king vs. king endgame is a jerk. Anybody that plays on in hopeless situations is also a jerk. Don't be rude, have some class, resign when it's lost.
I don't agree. Some begginers do not know how to finish king and rook vs. king endings. 50 moves can pass without checkmate, in which case a draw can be claimed.
Originally posted by LanndonKane I don't agree. Some begginers do not know how to finish king and rook vs. king endings. 50 moves can pass without checkmate, in which case a draw can be claimed.
If a beginner can beat you up enough to get you to this point he deserves the courtesy of a resignation from you.
Originally posted by cmsMaster It's rude not to resign in a situation where the best you can get is a draw. Anybody that continues to play on in a rook and king vs. king endgame is a jerk. Anybody that plays on in hopeless situations is also a jerk. Don't be rude, have some class, resign when it's lost.
What? Are you kidding me?
If the best you can hope for is a draw, why would you resign? What if there's an empty board aside for two kings? I know this isn't what you meant; it's an extreme example. However, my point still stands. If you have any reason to hope for a draw, then don't resign. I'll always resign when I'm a piece down unless it's still complicated because I have almost no chance of a draw. But worse players may have more cause to hope for a comeback.
I think a lot of you are looking at this the wrong way. Resignation is an option given to the losing player to save him or her time. It's not a convience for the winning player. Usually the losing player will resign when he or she is lost because it's no fun to continue, and the winning player appreciates this. However, the winning player can't expect it, only hope for it.
Originally posted by cmsMaster If a beginner can beat you up enough to get you to this point he deserves the courtesy of a resignation from you.
Or he deserves to get the chance to play it out, so that he can get some endgame practice. I'll probably never learn to play basic endgames because most opponents resign early.
Originally posted by cmsMaster It's rude not to resign in a situation where the best you can get is a draw. Anybody that continues to play on in a rook and king vs. king endgame is a jerk. Anybody that plays on in hopeless situations is also a jerk. Don't be rude, have some class, resign when it's lost.
You are on my list of people to never resign against (although I can't see a set of circumstances through which the situation would arise).
Is there a chess rule that tells a person to resign when they are down "X" number of pieces? It may be frustrating for some to play against an opponent with 3 pieces down. Why is it so important that our opponents resign in such cases? It would be nice that they did; but why is it so important?
Originally posted by ark13 What? Are you kidding me?
If the best you can hope for is a draw, why would you resign? What if there's an empty board aside for two kings? I know this isn't what you meant; it's an extreme example. However, my point still stands. If you have any reason to hope for a draw, then don't resign. I'll always resign when I'm a piece down unless it's still c ...[text shortened]... ayer appreciates this. However, the winning player can't expect it, only hope for it.
Did you read what I wrote? If you are down to just your king, and your opponent has a king and a rook, why wouldn't you resign? The chance of a draw is EXTREMELY slim, and can only occur if your opponent SEVERELY blunders.
Originally posted by KingOnPoint Is there a chess rule that tells a person to resign when they are down "X" number of pieces? It may be frustrating for some to play against an opponent with 3 pieces down. Why is it so important that our opponents resign in such cases? It would be nice that they did; but why is it so important?
I think the bigger issue may be the slow play that usually accompanies this.
If someone wants to play on down three pieces, that's one thing. If they want to play on down three pieces, moving once every three, seven, or fourteen days, that's another.
21 May '06 21:351 edit
Etiquette
Back to Top