Lack of Good Manners on RHP

My view on this is that, if you know that there is no realistic, conceivable chance of avoiding defeat, then it is good etiquette to resign. It is for you to decide when this is, based on the position, skill of opponent etc and the benefit of doubt should always be given to you if you decide to play on.

However, if you know that you are only playing on to draw out the game either to:

1) Annoy your opponent
2) In the hope he/she dies
3) To protect a rating for a while

then I happen to think this is poor etiquette. Ditto the power out!

I was, however, caused to reflect on this when GP mentioned that some members of RHP think it is the right thing to do to play on and allow the mate.

However, what is good etiquette is defined by generally accepted social conventions, and we do not see many serious chess players playing on endlessly in hopelessly lost positions.

Perhaps the half-way house on RHP is to message the opponent saying 'I am happy to resign, but would you like me to play on to mate?'. But that seems unecessary and I would prefer people just to resign unless mate is only a few moves away.

However, the OP acknowledges that the opponent might blunder into stalemate or some other drawing situation, which is entirely different.

In that case, I say play on!

Originally posted by Rank outsider
My view on this is that, if you know that there is no realistic, conceivable chance of avoiding defeat, then it is good etiquette to resign. It is for you to decide when this is, based on the position, skill of opponent etc and the benefit of doubt should always be given to you if you decide to play on.

However, if you know that you are only playin ...[text shortened]... or some other drawing situation, which is entirely different.

In that case, I say play on!

Another thoughtful and intelligent comment

Originally posted by Aldan
Another thoughtful and intelligent comment

To clarify, have you ever contacted any of your opponents directly and suggested that they should resign? Do you think it is or would be acceptable to do so?

I’m not sure why concepts of manners and etiquette are being applied to a game. A game, by definition, is played by its own rules. Those rules establish a different context, a different framework within which we play, and different rules of order. Within the game, the only thing that constitutes a breech of any kind is a breech of those rules. As the OP is from New Jersey and apparently a neighbor of mine, I’ll go with an American football example. If defensive linemen from my hometown team from Minnesota sack the quarterback of the team from my adopted city, Philadelphia, that could be seen as an extraordinary breech of manners; in some contexts it would even be assault and a crime. But within the context of the game, it is simply how the game is played. Similarly, those who play out seemingly lost positions in apparent hope of stalemates, timeouts, or perhaps just for fun, are simply playing the game. “Manners” is just not an issue. If the quarterback from Philadelphia doesn’t like being sacked (or can’t avoid being injured every time he is) because he finds it rude, well, he must either accept that it’s going to happen as a part of the game he has chosen to play and get past trying to apply etiquette in a context where it doesn’t fit or get out of the game. So too the chess player from New Jersey upset by prolonged games. I’m not actually suggesting the OP should stop playing chess, just that he is applying an incongruous standard to behavior within the game.

So now I wonder...In American football, there are rules against unsportsmanlike conduct which is perhaps the sporting equivalent of “bad manners.” And this website has rules about decorum and “abuse.” These all carry consequences. Any of the many folks here better versed than I am in the rules of OTB chess know...are there rules about “unchessmanlike conduct”? Making distracting noises or, I don’t know, touching pieces when it’s not your turn or something? I’ve heard tell about chess players tapping the table or seeming to attempt to distract their opponents, but are there actually rules about any of this? Or anything else that might approach a codification of manners?

Originally posted by moonbus
The Japanese game of GO is the only game I know which ends by mutual agreement; when both players agree that neither can improve his position, the game ends.

That sounds just like an accepted draw offer in chess. 🙂

Originally posted by patrickrutgers
I’m not sure why concepts of manners and etiquette are being applied to a game.

Well, they could talk smack about your mom during the game. That's probably bad manners/etiquette. 😛

Originally posted by patrickrutgers
Any of the many folks here better versed than I am in the rules of OTB chess know...are there rules about “unchessmanlike conduct”? Making distracting noises or, I don’t know, touching pieces when it’s not your turn or something? I’ve heard tell about chess players tapping the table or seeming to attempt to distract their opponents, but are there actually rules about any of this? Or anything else that might approach a codification of manners?

The US Chess Federation has a general rule that you can't annoy your opponent, which is vague and usually left to the Tournament Director's discretion. I think most TD's would call all of the actions you listed 'annoyance'.

Originally posted by Aldan
...and one's opponent has a decent rating (say more than 1600)...

And you just happen to be rated 1691. How about that. 🙂

I recall some lad on Chessbase advocating that all games, including GM games
should be played on to a mate.

There were many practical objections put forward making the idea a non-starter.
But I would have liked to see GM's setting themselves up for Self Mates just to
get the game over with. Even if it was for just one tournament.

You could put forward an extra Brillaincy Prize, the Best Self Mate Prize.
It would also stop the 'why did he reisgn' situations.

This also explains why there are so many one-sided mates appearing on the
front page (another gripe against this sitel.)

The games that don't end in mate are often resigned before it happens.
So the mate bank from which the system pulls these positions are games
where players have exercised their right and chosen not to resign.

I did a Self Mate on here instead of resigning, not a very good one but it did end in a mate.

greeenpawn34 - Nobito RHP 2010

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I recall some lad on Chessbase advocating that all games, including GM games
should be played on to a mate.

There were many practical objections put forward making the idea a non-starter.
But I would have liked to see GM's setting themselves up for Self Mates just to
get the game over with. Even if it was for just one tournament.

You could put ...[text shortened]... /1k1Np3/3nP2b/3P4/2R5/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 30"]
30. Rh3 Nf4 31. Rh2 Ra8 32. Ne4 Ra1[/pgn]

Technically, that's a helpmate. A selfmate is when you force your opponent to checkmate you against his wishes.

Hey, there's a blog idea.

Yes that's it, a Help Mate. Often get the two mixed up.

Yes a blog on Help Mates and then Self Mates would be good.
Some of them are fascinating.

No 109 movers though.

Originally posted by patrickrutgers
I’m not sure why concepts of manners and etiquette are being applied to a game. A game, by definition, is played by its own rules. Those rules establish a different context, a different framework within which we play, and different rules of order. Within the game, the only thing that constitutes a breech of any kind is a breech of those rules. As the ...[text shortened]... ctually rules about any of this? Or anything else that might approach a codification of manners?

Really?

That's bit like arguing that everything is morally OK if its legal. After all, life is lived within rules we set called laws. But no-one believes that these, of themselves, are sufficient in determining the acceptabilty of an individual's behaviour. It's not true in life, and it's not true in sport.

But we are not talking about rules. Everyone has accepted that a person is allowed to play on in chess. Etiquette, and good manners, are, almost by definition, what we think we should do which is not covered by a set of rules.

Trying to sacking a quarterback (not my game, by the way) is an intrinsic part of the game.

On the other hand, calling his wife something unmentionable just before he takes the final clinching kick of the game in the hope his anger causes him to miss the kick is bad etiquette and manners (actually I would argue it is cheating, but let's not introduce another concept!).

Further thoughts on good and bad manners in chess:

1. I once got into a drawable position against a player with about 200+ rating points on me (he was 2000+), yet I refrained from offering the draw. I felt it would be impertinent for me to offer the draw for two reasons: 1st, I was the weaker player in terms of ratings, and I felt I should, in all decency, prove that I did in fact know how to hold the draw OTB (not just theoretically). Second, I had a slightly inferior position (knight and two pawns against his bishop and three pawns)--if there were any winning lines, they were surely his, not mine. So I played on until he was convinced he could make no progress and himself offered the draw. I was rewarded for my good manners by receiving a very elegant compliment from him; it was indeed a tricky position and not easy to hold.

2. An opponent (not at RHP) once outright demanded that I resign, in a voice loud enough to disturb other games in progress in the tournament hall, so that several heads turned in our direction. I suggested that we play on a few moves and then see about it. It turned out his 'mating net' had a fatal flaw in it, he had in fact gotten his queen trapped, and he soon resigned. Now that was bad manners: demanding resignation, and in a loud voice to boot.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Really?

That's bit like arguing that everything is morally OK if its legal. After all, life is lived within rules we set called laws. But no-one believes that these, of themselves, are sufficient in determining the acceptabilty of an individual's behaviour. It's not true in life, and it's not true in sport.

But we are not talking about rules. ...[text shortened]... manners (actually I would argue it is cheating, but let's not introduce another concept!).

Speaking of not wanting to introduce another concept, I don’t think you want to conflate manners and etiquette with questions of what is “morally OK.” Doing so is not at all a “bit like” what I said. Manners ain’t morals, and Chess (forum) ain’t Spirituality (forum).

I would say the rules within the game--any game--are in fact quite sufficient for determining what is acceptable behavior within said game. In fact, that’s exactly what they do. The question may be when does a behavior performed inside a game extend outside the frame of the game and thus become subject to different “rules.” I mean, in most sports there is no rule against murdering your opponent, but to do so would be outside of the game and subject to other sets of rules that are not part of the rules of the game.

Is calling a kicker’s mother names out side of the game? I’m not sure. But certainly playing out a chess game until mate happens is not outside the game. Rather, it can be seen as, like sacking the quarterback, an intrinsic part of the game. And so to me it seems there is no reason to bring rules from outside of the game to bear on this action performed within the game, just as the quarterback won’t get anywhere filing legal charges against those who tackle him and won’t garner much sympathy for calling his tacklers rude!

I understand we’re not talking about whether or not the rules allow a player to continue a seemingly lost game. We’re talking about manners, and I’m trying ask why we are bothering to talk about manners? Is it a relevant question? I think it may not be worth it to figure out what’s good manners and what isn’t in chess, because at least in the one possible “bad manner” situation suggested (not resigning a game that may appear lost) the rules of the game simply matter so much more.

But if we want to talk about manners, then what are they? Precisely because “Everyone has accepted that a person is allowed to play on in chess,” I’d argue that how one person feels about it when it happens is not enough to call playing on “bad manners”. It isn’t just the rules that matter but the general acceptance of those who participate in the game. Collectively we seem to be saying “This is done here and it is OK” and this may be what actually defines “good” and “bad manners moreso than rules: is the collective group offended or put off by an action, or is the action accepted as the norm? If the latter, than the proposed “bad manner” may not really be bad manners at all. Rather, the ascription “bad manners” is simply one person’s unusual emotional response to how the game is played.

Originally posted by Varenka
To clarify, have you ever contacted any of your opponents directly and suggested that they should resign? Do you think it is or would be acceptable to do so?

I have, but that was a game witch was gong on 2 years and I could only lose by dying or going blind.