CHESS ETIQUETTE: Playing On In Ridiculous Positions, etc,

Er, that sounds off. Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting where you meant to go with this. Care to clarify?

People don't have to respect the rules and regulations,  if they deviate then an arbiter can come down on them,  should they feel like it.   Some rules are taken more or less seriously than others,  and with the benefit of social perception people generally act reasonably.   If the arbiter in whatever event doesn't say anything,  it's not his place to.   Taking the moral high ground,  practicing one-up-manship and complaining about these things isn't likely to do much good,  even on the issues where he really does have a point.    It won't help because it comes off as juvenile,  and most won't take it not because of what he's saying but because of who he seems to be.   My 2 cents was given with that in mind,  and while I am relatively new to chess (a few dozen hours now) I do know people who have went to events of various degrees of seriousness.    People generally aren't miserable, unsportsmanly and offensive and in *Many* games and fields,  toxicity is in the eye of the beholder.   

Does that clarify?  

No, Hexy, you have a muddled mind. I recommend some meditation in clear mountain air. Your point that people don't have to follow rules is juvenile on steroids. Grow up! But please go somewhere else to do it. You are not adding anything to this thread except bilious trash.

I headed a small GO club and we had people come who would be interested in playing or learning the game.  One thing I observed is it took a bit of humility to learn.  One had to make mistakes, and not be an instant good player regardless of how smart.  In particular I noted often young teenage males to younger adults often had a bit of chip on their shoulder, and were unable to lose or learn graciously.  But thankfully there were some wonderful exceptions.

Good point, NS. I also think that it is the responsibility of adult players to instruct kid players in the etiquette of the game, part of which is codified in the rule book. I also think learning to compete as a sportsman can only help you in life in general, though some others you encounter, of course, will conduct themselves as the antithesis of a sportsman. Take the high road anyway! Your view will always be better.

Zenwabi one of the things I always I appreciated about GO is the courtesy that is customary with the game. 

This is why @zenwabi, and everyone who acts like @zenwabi, should not be allowed within 1000 meters of children, scholastic events, and chess competitions:

@zenwabi: claims to promote "taking the high road"
Also @zenwabi:
"But please go somewhere else to do it. You are not adding anything to this thread except bilious trash."

"Nope, wrongo Spiderbreath!"

"Spiderbreath, when you be busted, learn to take it like a man"

"Spiderbreath, quibbling just for the sake of quibbling deserves a squashing"

"SD, may the bad karma associated with selfishness find you!"

"Wrongo, buffalo snout! Some of the points made are actual rules in the rule book, and the others spring out of the basic duty to behave as an honorable sportsman, instead of a clueless lout."

"You must be an American Republican if you think people don't have to abide by rules. And we see where that kind of feckless thinking has gotten them: a raging pandemic. And I don't give a flip what you respect, since you have no respect for rules. Piss off."

PatrickTheAllegedProgrammer,  judgmental clods like yourself rarely make constructive comments on issue threads. Your main fun is attempting to levy florid personal attacks against those trying to have a real discussion. I said "attempting". I don't assign any weight to your would-be flames, and neither should anyone else. You are such a self-important clod that you have no sense of humor. You are offended, grievously wounded, by the word "Spiderbreath"? Please find a life for yourself, but look elsewhere, you won't find it here.

OK, HuntTheWumpus2020, nobody said you should offer a draw when you're winning, and you are insane if you would not take a draw when you're losing, And when OTB play resumes, may YOU draw all the kids who have been told by their coaches to play 50-move draws in dead drawn positions, plus all the kids who insist on playing all the moves until they get mated, even though the position has not a shred of hope for a draw or swindle-win. Your opponent does NOT need your "best" in a dead drawn or dead won position. If you play on in either of those situations, you are wasting his/her time and yours.

Yes. Play to win. Many people forget the very purpose of the game. Even if someone were to look up chess on wikipedia, near the very beginning is the purpose of the game. Checkmate. 

The purpose isnt to resign. It isn't to draw. It isn't to win on time, stalemate, or 50 move rule. The purpose is to checkmate. Everyone is free to do whatever they want with their game. They can resign on move one if they want. But I agree, it's bad form to resign when checkmate is imminent. 

I've known some really fair ones, always objective. I've also known a couple who imposed their own ego on everything. It's easy for a normal player to get drawn into all the gamesmanship that occurs in tournaments, particularly from two classes of people ..... alcoholics and people in the 12 to 16 years old bracket. Then you may find yourself doing some stuff to counter them or even getting dragged in and maybe doing stuff like getting up and walking off either when it's your turn or your opponent's turn, or even playing standing up. I did. I suppose I was a tournament shark but I never deliberately lowered my rating.

As yet another example of kid players showing no respect for their opponents by playing on in ridiculous positions, I played in a CCA tourney last weekend, and in one of my games my opponent was totally destroyed. All he had left was a lone king, and still he played on. I had plenty of material left, so I just put his king in a rook box, and started slowly promoting all of my pawns, Still, he played on. I got one queen. I got two queens. I had plenty of time on my clock, and it was +10 increment to boot. Still, he would not resign. I got a 3rd queen and went for the obvious checkmate. I say again: it's ridiculous & disrespectful to do this to one of your opponents. IF YOU ARE TOTALLY BUSTED, RESIGN!!!! Would Caruana play on against Carlsen if Magnus had 3 queens against a lone king????

actually when you have a lone king it's better to play on, since stalemate chances are much higher.

yes

If you ask me, I would say this "Etiquette" is just a Fu**ing dumb rule

This is exactly why people don't resign. If I were playing against someone who got three queens there is zero chance I would resign.  And I'm not a terrible player. With every move the chance of stalemate grows. Three queens just shows they aren't able or willing to checkmate. Someone who promotes three queens needlessly isn't someone who is eager to win. It's someone who is eager to take chances. 

To answer your last question the answer is probably yes. He would probably play on. Because it's it's reasonable to assume there is something wrong with the person who needlessly got three queens. 

C_D, if you can't contribute to a discussion, then don't. Nobody needs to see your profane remarks.

I_P_G, no, with every move the chance of stalemate does not grow, as once all the pawns are promoted, every queen move will be done with check. But the wasting of time does grow. Participants in a sport should mimic the play of top-level players, and that includes copying the etiquette around resigning in dead lost positions, or agreeing to a draw in dead drawn positions. Also, your statement about 3 queens misses the point, which is to demonstrate to an opponent who refuses to resign that his position is hopeless, and that he should reconsider his decision to waste the time of both players with his stubborn refusal to accept his obvious loss. Players who won't resign when totally busted are the DONALD TRUMPS of the chess board, childishly refusing to accept defeat. GM's don't misbehave like this, so lower-rated players shouldn't, either. 

As long as one side refuses to win, there is no reason for the other side to resign. The three queens scenario. I would have to assume that person is having an episode of some kind. Something is wrong. So what is the point in resigning when the other side is either intentionally or accidentally missing the chance to win?

Defeat only happens when the other side wins. It may or may not happen. If one side actually wants to win, checkmate. If they want to take risks and chances, promote 3 queens. There is no right or wrong answer. Just personal preference.