As has been pointed out it is the player's decision whether to resign or not. They can choose to play on as long as they want to within the rules. However what if that person decides to take their full allocation of time every move. Say 7 days. They move in all their other games more often than that but they delay in your game. Is that good sportsmanship?
What if as has been the case in the past this one game is holding up a tournament or league with many players waiting on it. Is it good sportsmanship to delay all of those players so you can have you fun?
Here's a related angle to this that hasn't been covered: Checkmates are the coup de grace of chess, and there is a certain satisfaction for the winner when achieving a checkmate that doesn't come from forcing a resignation. Checkmates can even have an element of artistry to them: the gracefulness of how the combination was put together, the economy of moves. Because of resignations, checkmates are not that common. When someone resigns, the game is quicker, but at a cost to the winner's final satisfaction. Clearly, not all winners want to wait for this and would prefer that the losing player simply resigns. Further, not all losing players want to play it out all the way to checkmate. I understand that. But what about those times when you put together a great combination out of nowhere and it will be checkmate in one or two moves and your opponent resigns? You lose a bit of your satisfaction. The ultimate, gross example of this was when you were playing OTB as kids and your bad mannered opponent swept the chessmen off the board to avoid your final victory. Everyone remember that? It is for this reason that I do not resign when I find myself in a lost position with checkmate only several moves away--I play it out and allow my victorious opponent to put together his checkmate. On the other hand, if I find myself in a lost position where checkmate will require quite a grind for my opponent to achieve, I will resign to save him the time and trouble. So that's how I make my resignation decisions--when I know the end is inevitable, what would my victorious opponent likely prefer?
Originally posted by bobbob1056thDude...that is a set piece game with white to move and mate in 1....get a life and play some games where you have a chance of losing
Game 1214996
In this game I was a 2 rooks 2 bishops 2 knights 6 pawns and a queen down, and I should have resigned?
Also I have said before in a given position there are many ways to win or draw. Here are a few:
1. Time. If your opponenet loses time you win or draw
2. Stalemate. If your opponent stalemates you it's a draw.
3. Offer Draw. ...[text shortened]... to not resign I'd be happy to, I can probably come up with 15 overall from the top of my head.
Originally posted by RavelloEXACTLY!!!!!!
Everyone here is saying "it's his right to play on".
This is obvious and doesn't answer the initial question posted by Alpha10.
Let's put the question in those terms: [b]Is generally considered bad etiquette playing on hopeless games?
I believe yes.[/b]
Thank you Ravello, for attempting to answer the question I asked, not the question everyone else made for me.
Originally posted by buddy2I believe that players should resign if they are in a hopeless position.
Courtesty, etiquette, disrespect, bad manners--all that have nothing to do with it. YOU want him to quit because it'll save you the trouble of winning a won game. HE doesn't want to quit because he wants to delay losing rating points as ...[text shortened]... nd kiss your kids or wife or girlfriend and get on with your life.
Originally posted by buddy2You, in your infinite knowledge of the human brain and its psychology, have put words in my mouth that I never even thought of. Thank you for your expert analysis though. I'm glad my life can continue now that you have dispersed your knowledge. Winning a won game is no trouble, and no one has said that he doesn't have the right to play to checkmate. You assumed that because I started the thread that I have a game in mind...which I don't. I was asking if resigning in a lost cause was a courtesy or not.
Courtesty, etiquette, disrespect, bad manners--all that have nothing to do with it. YOU want him to quit because it'll save you the trouble of winning a won game. HE doesn't want to quit because he wants to delay losing rating points as long as possible and with the outside chance you will get frustrated and blunder. So when you make your decisions you b ...[text shortened]... ll of beans. Make your move and kiss your kids or wife or girlfriend and get on with your life.
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo, that's not good sportsmanship. It's especially obnoxious if the person is holding up a tournament or league.
As has been pointed out it is the player's decision whether to resign or not. They can choose to play on as long as they want to within the rules. However what if that person decides to take their full allocation of time every move. Say 7 days. They move in all their other games more often than that but they delay in your game. Is that good sportsmanship? ...[text shortened]... s waiting on it. Is it good sportsmanship to delay all of those players so you can have you fun?
If you can give a definition of a "lost cause" it would make it easier to decide if it's a courtesy. I've had some players resign a couple of pawns down in a bad position. I've had some players play on a couple of pieces down with two of my pawns ready to queen, etc. Now, to put it in its worst light, suppose you have a forced win in three moves (or maybe even less) and you demonstrate the win in a message to your opponent and he still continues to play, using the maximum amount of time. Now that's never happened to me, but I bet it has to somebody on RHP. Is that discourteous? Is it discourteous to announce the mate in three? How about this? In an over the board game you announce a forced mate in three, show your opponent (without touching pieces of course) and he continues to play, using up all his clock time and your life time sitting at the board. I don't think there's a thing you or the TD can do about it. Maybe he hates your guts and wants you to get angry and frustrated, but you just have to go along with it.
Originally posted by RavelloBut, what's the hurry? Why do you need to finish this game any earlier?
Yeah,sure,whatever.............."trouble of winning the game"?
All I have to do is a long king walk to checkmate him and it will take at least a dozen of moves,which means a couple of months at the pace the guy is moving now.
We are here on a chess site and the thread is for discussing if resign or not lost games,so don't come with the banal statem ...[text shortened]... n it's time to resign: you'll never see a 2000+ player going on with such game,think about it.
Originally posted by XanthosNZIs it GOOD sportsmanship? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it's BAD sportsmanship either.
As has been pointed out it is the player's decision whether to resign or not. They can choose to play on as long as they want to within the rules. However what if that person decides to take their full allocation of time every move. Say 7 days. They move in all their other games more often than that but they delay in your game. Is that good sportsmanship? ...[text shortened]... s waiting on it. Is it good sportsmanship to delay all of those players so you can have you fun?
Frankly, anyone who plays in tournaments can go about their business and play as many OTHER games as they want. The game everyone is 'waiting' for is not preventing you from playing however many other games you feel like playing in the meantime.
I think the suggestion that's been made a couple of times that the next round of a tournament can start when the outcome of each group is clear, which would solve this 'problem' to a large extent. But I really don't see what the hassle is. I have opponents who move only very occasionally, and once every couple of weeks I check up on my list of games to see if there's anyone who really hasn't moved for a long time and send them a move reminder. But in the meantime I have 20, 25 other games to keep me occupied.
Originally posted by Alpha10a 'lost cause' is relative and the deciding point of view is from the losing individual... Your answer is within the losing opponents intentions. If his/hers intentions are to prolong the game for ratings manipulation or pure frustration; then, it is obviously bad etiquette. However, if he/she is still learning, or believes in luck, there is no forced mate, or is simply too proud to resign; then no, it is not bad etiquette and the winning player must respect that. The problem is that, impatient winning players are often too quick to judge that their opponent is being malicious.
Is it just a courtesy to resign lost causes? Say one player makes a dumb move early in the game and exchanges a queen for nothing, should he resign?
Originally posted by 0rbitalCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I have never said that my opponent was being malicious.
a 'lost cause' is relative and the deciding point of view is from the losing individual... Your answer is within the losing opponents intentions. If his/hers intentions are to prolong the game for ratings manipulation or pure frustration; then, it is obviously bad etiquette. However, if he/she is still learning, or believes in luck, there is no forced ...[text shortened]... mpatient winning players are often too quick to judge that their opponent is being malicious.
My definition of lost cause is being down, without chance of winning.
Originally posted by Alpha10and without chance of drawing I presume. I don't think one is lost when he/she got the other one in a forced repetition of moves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never said that my opponent was being malicious.
My definition of lost cause is being down, without chance of winning.