I think such Ideas as "Resigning as a matter of etiquette...." is influenced by the play of the world´s best. There nearly never you see a checkmate (maybe in bullet, but that is not my concern). And so lower rated players think it must be like that. But the reason, that there are so few chemates is just that in these high level play of GM´s and Super GM´s you can be absolutely shure that your opponent knows the way that leads to victory, so there is no reason to play on. But here, in the lower lying territories of the great game there is a significant possibility to turn a bad game around. And so it´s understandable that lot´s of people play till the very end.
Resign Already!
Sort:
As long as the player has time on the clock, they may play. Blunders happen, a won game can become lost in moves. Also if it's such a lost position, checkmate them!
I disagree with the premise of the thread but I've had a few frustrating daily games where we're making fairly regular moves ahead of time and then just as I get into a strong and fairly dominant position they suddenly start taking their full time allocation to think through every single move and we drop down to one move a day (or worse).
Sometimes find myself wondering if they're really, really thinking it through or just hoping I might slip up and miss a move deadline...is this a common thing?
Mar 9, 2021
0
#26
melvinbluestone hat geschrieben:
archaja wrote:
I think such Ideas as "Resigning as a matter of etiquette...." is influenced by the play of the world´s best. There nearly never you see a checkmate (maybe in bullet, but that is not my concern). And so lower rated players think it must be like that. But the reason, that there are so few chemates is just that in these high level play of GM´s and Super GM´s you can be absolutely shure that your opponent knows the way that leads to victory, so there is no reason to play on. But here, in the lower lying territories of the great game there is a significant possibility to turn a bad game around. And so it´s understandable that lot´s of people play till the very end.
I agree. We often see the high level players not 'forcing' their opponents to execute mates when they know with near certainty it's inevitable. But even there it's not required. And sometimes they go the other way: they see they have overlooked a really beautiful line that their opponent has prepared, so they play it out for the benefit of spectators.
Neither situation is likely to apply to the OP. When you play chess online, don't expect 'civilized' behavior from your opponent. Expect a bitter fight to the finish. As for 'etiquette', leave that for tea and crumpets at four o'clock.
That´s right. Remember the so called "Game of the century" where mr. byrne played till the very end to give his 13 year opponent (Fischer) the possibility to mate him after a great game. I had shortly bevor a game where my opponent had the better cards at the endgame. Two connected pawns and a rook against my lonely pawn and a rook. But I played on and did my best and got a draw out of it. And, believe it or not, my opponent said afterwards that these kind of games make him love chess. That wouldn´t have happened (is this the right time? not shure) if I had resigned.
ashtondayrider wrote:
I disagree with the premise of the thread but I've had a few frustrating daily games where we're making fairly regular moves ahead of time and then just as I get into a strong and fairly dominant position they suddenly start taking their full time allocation to think through every single move and we drop down to one move a day (or worse).
Sometimes find myself wondering if they're really, really thinking it through or just hoping I might slip up and miss a move deadline...is this a common thing?
yes, if youre opponent is a sore loser, you can report him for stalling
Keep in mind that players below 1300 or so are not going to be hyper aware of whether their position is hopeless or not. We're not grandmasters, and so it's just bad strategy to resign even if you have a sliver of a chance. Furthermore, us scrubs need to practice our endgame too sometimes. We'll never get the chance if people always resign against us.
It's funny because I feel like people around 1100 or below will fight to the bitter end, yes sometimes because they don't realize they're cooked, but that's ok. You learn by playing, not resigning! On the flipside, once you get to 1200s it's like people somehow think they should know everything about the game, and if they have to trade a queen for a rook they resign out of rage. Honestly that angers me even more - I don't want to win the game because I made one favorable trade. I want to win because I won. Keep playing, damnit! I'm not that good!
Mar 9, 2021
0
#29
melvinbluestone hat geschrieben:
archaja wrote:
melvinbluestone hat geschrieben:
archaja wrote:
I think such Ideas as "Resigning as a matter of etiquette...." is influenced by the play of the world´s best. There nearly never you see a checkmate (maybe in bullet, but that is not my concern). And so lower rated players think it must be like that. But the reason, that there are so few chemates is just that in these high level play of GM´s and Super GM´s you can be absolutely shure that your opponent knows the way that leads to victory, so there is no reason to play on. But here, in the lower lying territories of the great game there is a significant possibility to turn a bad game around. And so it´s understandable that lot´s of people play till the very end.
I agree. We often see the high level players not 'forcing' their opponents to execute mates when they know with near certainty it's inevitable. But even there it's not required. And sometimes they go the other way: they see they have overlooked a really beautiful line that their opponent has prepared, so they play it out for the benefit of spectators.
Neither situation is likely to apply to the OP. When you play chess online, don't expect 'civilized' behavior from your opponent. Expect a bitter fight to the finish. As for 'etiquette', leave that for tea and crumpets at four o'clock.
That´s right. Remember the so called "Game of the century" where mr. byrne played till the very end to give his 13 year opponent (Fischer) the possibility to mate him after a great game. I had shortly bevor a game where my opponent had the better cards at the endgame. Two connected pawns and a rook against my lonely pawn and a rook. But I played on and did my best and got a draw out of it. And, believe it or not, my opponent said afterwards that these kind of games make him love chess. That wouldn´t have happened (is this the right time? not shure) if I had resigned.
Yes, an interesting example. In fact, Donald Byrne himself later said that at the very point when he resigned, most of the spectators thought he had a won game! Good thing none of them were playing Bobby's position....... they might have resigned and thrown away a win.
Sorry, but you were on the wrong game. Not Robert Byrne but Donald Byrne, 1956, not 1963. He played till the very end. But it´s easy to mix them up.
Mar 9, 2021
0
#30
If you are a strong player then people will resign in a losing position because defeat is inevitable. If not then you can't expect it. See here:
White looks lost, 2 pawns extra for black plus a monster passed a pawn. If it's Aronian vs So then white has already resigned. But it's 2 under 1500's and you spend over 2 minutes finding the lemon Kf7 losing the bishop trivially and tossing away the win. Here your opponent was fully justified in not resigning a 'lost' position because you are not Wesley So.
Mar 10, 2021
0
#31
MeekThought wrote:
I’ve noticed in most of my wins my opponent refuses to resign in a hopeless position. This is poor etiquette and makes for a much less enjoyable chess game.
How about adding backgammon’s doubling cube to chess? For the player offering double odds they’d get +2 for a win (double the rating points of course), -2 for a loss, and -1 for a draw (the player accepting the double gets +1 for a draw obviously).
How about adding backgammon’s doubling cube to chess? For the player offering double odds they’d get +2 for a win (double the rating points of course), -2 for a loss, and -1 for a draw (the player accepting the double gets +1 for a draw obviously).
I do not think one should literally resign in my career I have seen 2200+ losing after winning the queen one should never resign. But if the game is in a rapid or classic format than one must resign.
In speed chess it is the vice versa as the opponent have chance to get timeout or blunder because of time.
Mar 10, 2021
0
#32
melvinbluestone hat geschrieben:
archaja wrote:
melvinbluestone hat geschrieben:
archaja wrote:
melvinbluestone hat geschrieben:
archaja wrote:
I think such Ideas as "Resigning as a matter of etiquette...." is influenced by the play of the world´s best. There nearly never you see a checkmate (maybe in bullet, but that is not my concern). And so lower rated players think it must be like that. But the reason, that there are so few chemates is just that in these high level play of GM´s and Super GM´s you can be absolutely shure that your opponent knows the way that leads to victory, so there is no reason to play on. But here, in the lower lying territories of the great game there is a significant possibility to turn a bad game around. And so it´s understandable that lot´s of people play till the very end.
I agree. We often see the high level players not 'forcing' their opponents to execute mates when they know with near certainty it's inevitable. But even there it's not required. And sometimes they go the other way: they see they have overlooked a really beautiful line that their opponent has prepared, so they play it out for the benefit of spectators.
Neither situation is likely to apply to the OP. When you play chess online, don't expect 'civilized' behavior from your opponent. Expect a bitter fight to the finish. As for 'etiquette', leave that for tea and crumpets at four o'clock.
That´s right. Remember the so called "Game of the century" where mr. byrne played till the very end to give his 13 year opponent (Fischer) the possibility to mate him after a great game. I had shortly bevor a game where my opponent had the better cards at the endgame. Two connected pawns and a rook against my lonely pawn and a rook. But I played on and did my best and got a draw out of it. And, believe it or not, my opponent said afterwards that these kind of games make him love chess. That wouldn´t have happened (is this the right time? not shure) if I had resigned.
Yes, an interesting example. In fact, Donald Byrne himself later said that at the very point when he resigned, most of the spectators thought he had a won game! Good thing none of them were playing Bobby's position....... they might have resigned and thrown away a win.
Sorry, but you were on the wrong game. Not Robert Byrne but Donald Byrne, 1956, not 1963. He played till the very end. But it´s easy to mix them up.
Robert Byrne? How'd he get in here?
ah, more or less you and me invited him together. You said that he resigned, but he didn´t (https://www.chess.com/de/article/view/die-partie-des-jahrhunderts-byrne-gegen-fischer-1956) and I misread your comment and read "Robert" but you said "Donald" In fact, Robert Byrne resigned his game against Fischer (https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008419) so we both mixed them up - somehow.....
Mar 10, 2021
0
#33
dah_happyh0ppyh0rsi3 wrote:
some people are just that stubborn o_O
It is so easy to convert that position. Why complain? It helps your patience.
Mar 10, 2021
0
#34
You wanted to play the game. Your opponent did. You are not entitled to your opponent resigning trying to draw or win in a lost position.
Maybe they want the hidden achievement called Chess Marathon.
dah_happyh0ppyh0rsi3 wrote:
yes, if youre opponent is a sore loser, you can report him for stalling
I suppose you could report anybody for anything, but don't expect a punishment for 'stalling.' Both sides agreed to a time control at the beginning of a game, so deal with it.
I have played dozens of games with the doubling cube. Makes the game much more exciting.
Without the doubling cube--many low rated players do not understand when it is their interest to resign.
A good chess teacher will explain when it is to the interest of the student to resign.
breakerofwind wrote:
dah_happyh0ppyh0rsi3 wrote:
yes, if youre opponent is a sore loser, you can report him for stalling
I suppose you could report anybody for anything, but don't expect a punishment for 'stalling.' Both sides agreed to a time control at the beginning of a game, so deal with it.
This is also my view, it's just a bit annoying really! Not like any rules are being broken...
ashtondayrider wrote:
breakerofwind wrote:
dah_happyh0ppyh0rsi3 wrote:
yes, if youre opponent is a sore loser, you can report him for stalling
I suppose you could report anybody for anything, but don't expect a punishment for 'stalling.' Both sides agreed to a time control at the beginning of a game, so deal with it.
This is also my view, it's just a bit annoying really! Not like any rules are being broken...
i mean when youre playing a 5 days game such a game could last a year.... but i didnt see anything about purposely using all you're time, only vacation abuse https://support.chess.com/article/639-what-is-vacation-abuse
I agree that it's sometimes pathetic that people try to play on down a queen and rook but some people are just like that. They hope for miracles which never happen. You just have to teach them a lesson and show them the bankruptcy of their position. If you can't, don't come here complaining.