Should you ever resign?

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply

Should you ever resign?

Have you ever resigned?
11
58%
Are you a good sport?
8
42%
 
Total votes: 19

presort
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:53 am

Should you ever resign?

Post by presort » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:07 am

I would never ask anyone to resign even if they have only a king against an army. However, I don\'t want to play with them any more than I would want to play against the retarded 3rd grader. It is written that many chess masters will resign if they fall only 3 points behind. They do this because they have respect of the other chessmaster and know when they are beaten and when they still have a chance. I\'m only an average player, but I know that if I have only a king against an army my chances against another average player are zero. That said, when I see a player with only a king against an army I make some conclusions about that players chess skills and for the sake of good gamesmanship and not wanting to take advantage of such a weak player I won\'t play them again.

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 pm

So are you saying the person with a king only should resign just cause? What about other factors involved? Just curious your arguement.

langelli
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:29 am

Post by langelli » Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:13 pm

I agree with resigning when I'm way behind in a game. I don't think 3 points behind against a player of equal skill constitutes resigning. I've lost my queen at times and still came back to win. What gets my goat more than a player not resigning when they should is when my apponent stops making moves because they know they will most likely lose the game. I'm sorry to say that I experience that much too often here on net-chess. I guess we can't make someone a good sport if they if they're not one to begin with. Net-chess has many good sports with a keen sense of fair play. I guess that's one reason why I play here. Merry Christmas to all and a Happy New Year!

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:20 am

Agreed Langelli my point is just cause I have a king doesn't mean I need to resign. Maybe his time is low and will run out. Things like that;not saying it's a grand win but it's a win nonetheless.

wmalone
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:12 pm

Post by wmalone » Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:31 am

I think players should resign, instead of simply letting their time run out.

langelli
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:29 am

Post by langelli » Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:48 pm

There is definately a time when a player should resign. The only problem is that there are so many variables in this great game that one person can't really say when another person should or shouldn't resign.

neilb
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:19 am

Post by neilb » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:44 am

I want to choose both options.

orestes
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:34 am

Stalemate!

Post by orestes » Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:21 pm

Don't just show me the knife; show me you can make the cut.
Forget the arbitrary clock. Think stalemate and repetition.

Chess is not a game of points. Those are merely one tool in analyzing a position. If I sacrifice a piece to get a passed pawn am I supposed to resign?

I resign enough, I think, but I won't pretend or expect the graces of a GM until I understand the position and know my opponent does as well.

There can be plenty of complexity to learn from in any endgame, and chess is the better game for that.

joelag
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Rhineland/Germany

Senseless Poll

Post by joelag » Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:17 am

Should you ever resign?

This is the most senseless poll I've ever seen on Net-Chess.Com.
What is this poll about? There are 2 options. Both options are questions (btw I'd have to answer both with yes). Am I supposed to vote for the question with the most vowels?

But since I'm a polite man I still give the answer to the initial question:
As soon as the outcome of a match is completely clear and it's only a matter of bringing it home I expect the losing side to resign. It saves a lot of time - both of the loser and the winner. But since I admit a weaker player to take some more moves to realise that his position is completely lost I'd not take a grudge if he's dragging it on for some more moves.

And if I'd ever have an opponent who keeps playing with only his king against - let's say - my queen I would think by myself "Wow, what an idiot!" and check mate him as fast as possible.

CU, Joe

langelli
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:29 am

Post by langelli » Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:24 pm

It's not senseless. At least there's some dialog here on the forum. Most of the time it's very quiet. It's a good thing for us members to talk back and forth. At least I think it's a good thing.

asnew
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:31 am

resign

Post by asnew » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:24 am

Where was it I read.. the master will sometimes play into an inferior
position purposely by knowing their opponent. If that element is exhausted,
and you think they may win, and you know its a lost cause, why not be
true to yourself and resign.
Say they do blunder later, no satisfaction there for you. (I should hope, young man) :wink:

langelli
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:29 am

Post by langelli » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:35 pm

How true it is. Well said! :wink:

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:26 am

In OTB games I usually resign as soon as I make a mistake. My opponent and onlookers are usually more than willing to study what went wrong because the position is right there.
Greg Miller

mic
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:31 pm

to resign or not to resign?

Post by mic » Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:38 am

I have played about 500 games in OTB tournament chess and have seen the whole range of should I resign or not...On this site, once I was in a lost position but, found a force stalemate that my opponent couldn't do a thing about...I was so proud of that stalemate I consider it one of my best games on this site...however, in reviewing that game...I should have resigned before move 20!!!! Sometimes it's good to play on...but, if you only have a king that is just being arrogant and ignorant at the same time.


Happy New Year!

Mic :)
enjoyed chess for thirty years...have lots of books and mags but never time to study. Maybe when I retire...chess strength has gone done ratings are unrealistic

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:17 am

Right we will believe a guy named MIC!!!!!!!!

mic
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:31 pm

Islanderfan???

Post by mic » Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:47 pm

I truly believe that Islanderfan is on some type of acid!!!! He should be ignored :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :arrow: :mrgreen: :| :roll: :lol: :lol:
He is a jar of lubriderm short of a barrel :) :twisted: :roll:
enjoyed chess for thirty years...have lots of books and mags but never time to study. Maybe when I retire...chess strength has gone done ratings are unrealistic

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:59 pm

yeah I have moved upto a jar!

cliff
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by cliff » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:05 pm

Happy New Year All!

Regarding resigning, I tend to think that the position and the time controls should be a factor when figuring out whether to resign or not. If things are totally hopeless (barring your opponent having a lobotomy one move before mate) then the gentlemanlly thing to do is resign. But what one should NOT do, is just cease to make moves when losing! Why? The player who stops moving will eventually lose on time, true, but meanwhile the game just lingers for the other player. It's poor sportsmanship, and it's happened to me here twice now! In a tournament I'm playing, one opponent (Who shall be nameless )made his last move 20 days ago! He was responding every few days untill the game shifted against him. Then - nothing! I understand he's done this against some others also. It's also happened at another site I play at, and from now on that type of player will never be an opponent of mine again. I prefer the good sports, win, lose, or draw!

- Cliff Dwyer :wink:

langelli
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:29 am

Post by langelli » Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:23 pm

I agree 100%. The only thing one can do is to avoid that type of player in the future.

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

When to resign

Post by davidswhite » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:29 am

It's my practice to play on as long as I can see even the slightest chance of avoiding a loss. However, just like Greg, I sometimes instantly resign
(in my case from self-disgust) after making some particularly egregious
blunder.
There comes a point in every losing game when you just know it's pointless to continue...you've been outplayed and your opponent has surmounted
every ingenious trap you'd thrown in his way and you're uncomfortably
aware that with each move your position has eroded just a little bit more.

Technically one can always justify continuing until checkmate on the grounds
that the other person might still have a coronary,or a stroke but this is
simply nonsense.He has earned the win and you have deserved the loss,
and no deus ex machina can alter that simple fact.

To allow your clock to time out in a lost position instead of resigning punctually is a sure tell that you are seriously lacking any chess maturity.

cliff
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: When to resign

Post by cliff » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:09 am

davidswhite wrote:To allow your clock to time out in a lost position instead of resigning punctually is a sure tell that you are seriously lacking any chess maturity.
My God, David has summed up the whole thing in one very telling sentence! I almost think that should be mandatory reading for anyone playing the game!

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:11 pm

Oh Dave


Are you saying that I should resign just cause I am at a loss for position but my opp clock is nearing the end? Another part of the game just like any other sport is clock managament.

langelli
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:29 am

Post by langelli » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:13 pm

I believe he's saying that the player with no chance of winning should resign instead of not making moves until he times out.

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:41 pm

Have to disagree, not my fault if his time runs out.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:28 pm

islanderfan wrote:Have to disagree, not my fault if his time runs out.
He's not saying you shouldn't try to win on time, but that a loosing player shouldn't just let his own time run out just to be a jerk.
Greg Miller

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:50 pm

My point Greg is not my fault if he or she runs out of time. It's part of the game. Would you say that a win in any soprt is better if it was 1-0 or 130-0???

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

Post by slowblunder » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:22 pm

The discussion is about the following situation:

SNOWWHITE plays a game vs. BLACKBARON. After 20 moves SNOWWHITE wins a Queen and a knight without any compensation. They keep on playing for another five moves until BLACKBARON realizes that he dislikes the position on the board.
He stops playing this game but still has 40 days of thinking time left. He has other games which he likes better and keeps on playing those games. SNOWWHITE is annoyed and doesn´t want to wait 40 days to win by timeout. She prefers a more sportive or gentleman-like style and complains in the forum that BLACKBARON should resign instead of showing this bad behaviour. Of course, it would also be okay if BLACKBARON kept on playing in a normal speed - but just ignoring an open (and obviously lost) game while playing others shows that BLACKBARON is a poor loser.

I hope that makes clear things even more clear.

Personally I don´t mind that behaviour because won positions aren´t too interesting for me. It doesn´t matter if I must play them or not. BLACKBARON doesn´t steal my time or my effort, he only shows bad losership (and that´s not my problem).
It´s him who has a lost position for weeks and it´s me who has a won game for weeks - that´s very okay, and I will finally get my deserved point (in my eyes I already have got it after his last mistake or my last genius move)!

I do mind such behaviour in a OTB game: 40 moves in twice two hours, and after two hours (1.5 of me and 0.5 of him) and 35 moves BLACKBARON is in a position ready to resign - 5 moves left to play in 0.5 hours is no challenge. But the game isn´t over!
BLACKBARON decides to let his clock run down because he can´t go home (shared car with his team-mates). He waits 1.5 hours to to his next five moves and gets another hour for the rest of the game. After that he stops playing for another hour and then finally resigns with a grin "I think I made a little mistake, good game and congrats". After that he leaves with his team-mates who just finished their games.
THAT IS ANNOYING, because he had stolen more than two hours of my lifetime. I couldn´t even leave the area because tournament rules say that that I would lose my game by this.

wstanevans
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:36 am

K vs. Q+K....is past the time to resign!!!

Post by wstanevans » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:39 am

islanderfan wrote:So are you saying the person with a king only should resign just cause? What about other factors involved? Just curious your arguement.
Point is you did NOT really win. You POSSIBLY just ruined the server experience for someone who was too weak-minded to stick with the easy win. Most likely someone new to chess who did not possess a basic understanding of won endgames. Yes...it is NOT your fault that they did not possess the one (of several) real important quality of a good player (determination).

But do not fool yourself into thinking you won anything. If you move to a more competitive or strict playing environment you will understand. Greg runs a nice, FREE, low stress operation here (I'm across the river in Louisville KY) and part of that is that the server does not punish people who forfeit. Hence forfeiture is viewed as being quite okay here by many players.

I disagree with that attitude by those so willing to forfeit. I do not forfeit! Get down two pawns on me and I will arrive on time daily to try to convert the advantage. Same is true if I THINK I can salvage a draw on the board (not on the clock). I resign lost positions period. Why waste my time?

I do agree there can be circumstances worthy of playing on and if there is HOPE of a draw AT THE BOARD specifically then we should honor the opponent by playing on as best we can, but down to a lone King versus pawns that are going to Queen is NOT one position worthy of playing on. Good sportsmanship SHOULD come into play then....

If our opponent has handled his or her clock poorly prior, then yes, we might play on a few moves until the clock situation is resolved, but I would not likely do that. THIS, where it is Q+K vs. K AND my opponent is out of time, has NEVER happened one time in my 30 year career of completing 7000 correspondence chess games by mail, e-mail or server however. Heck it has never happened in my brief period of time on the FICS playing blitz (maybe 500 games completed) and blitz chess is where it would seem more likely to happen given the severe time limitations of game/5 et al.

So...I suggest that we should not CREATE a desire of someone to let his or her clock run out in our completely lost position by showing ultra-competitiveness and using pyschological gamesmanship as our "Best Move" or our "Only Move".

I resign 100 times out of 100 when down to a lone K versus a Q+K.

neilb
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:19 am

Post by neilb » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:56 am

I agree with slowblunder. I don't play OTB games in that kind of setting, but I can't imagine that a guy sitting across the table from you would just sit there for two hours doing nothing. If that was likely to happened I'd just bring a book (to hit him over the head with!).
However in correspondence chess, what does it matter? It's not as if I'm sitting there waiting for him. Why do I care if he's moving or not? I've got other games on the go.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:48 pm

I had that happen to me, but fortunately it was G/30, and my opponent showed up late. He was 5 minutes late, we got to a point in the game where we had both responded to threats with counter attacks for a few moves in a row. So the position was pretty complicated, but the best I could work out is that it was simply a lot of trading pieces with my opponent to move when it was all over. I'm not sure exactly, but I believe he had between 15-20 minutes on his clock, but he never made another move. My eyes never left the board except to occasionally check the time, he seemed to be spending all of his time looking at the board too and had not left the table once the whole time.
Greg Miller

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:58 am

First yes it is a win. Sorry it's not my fault that you can't judge your game correctly. It's part of the learning the game. When I was taught to play chess with the "touch rule", every time I moved my hands it had better go to moving a piece or they are wacked with stick or when Davidswhite taught a paddle! I was also taught the clock is your enemy #2.
You may not take it as a win for, "nice" reasons but I look at it as you have a piece of your game to improve on. Every game whether a loss or a win you learn from.
As I said before is a win different if the score was 1-0 or 300-1? Understand both sides and agree somewhat, but to me a win is a win when a win is a win. :D

joelag
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Rhineland/Germany

I agree!

Post by joelag » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:20 am

slowblunder wrote:...
Personally I don´t mind that behaviour because won positions aren´t too interesting for me. It doesn´t matter if I must play them or not. BLACKBARON doesn´t steal my time or my effort, he only shows bad losership (and that´s not my problem).
It´s him who has a lost position for weeks and it´s me who has a won game for weeks - that´s very okay, and I will finally get my deserved point (in my eyes I already have got it after his last mistake or my last genius move)!

I do mind such behaviour in a OTB game: 40 moves in twice two hours, and after two hours (1.5 of me and 0.5 of him) and 35 moves BLACKBARON is in a position ready to resign - 5 moves left to play in 0.5 hours is no challenge. But the game isn´t over!
BLACKBARON decides to let his clock run down because he can´t go home (shared car with his team-mates). He waits 1.5 hours to to his next five moves and gets another hour for the rest of the game. After that he stops playing for another hour and then finally resigns with a grin "I think I made a little mistake, good game and congrats". After that he leaves with his team-mates who just finished their games.
THAT IS ANNOYING, because he had stolen more than two hours of my lifetime. I couldn´t even leave the area because tournament rules say that that I would lose my game by this.
I know, full quote isn't good style. But this is so perfectly to the point! Why care about some sore loser in CC? Just ignore it and wait. If you don't make a fuss of it you even steal him the satisfaction of angering you!

CU, Joe

sourcerer
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:12 am

i vouch for resigning

Post by sourcerer » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:32 am

i agree anyone who quits when he is lost than waste tym 4nothing :twisted: :idea: :arrow: :wink: :cry: :lol: 8) :o :( :o :o

sonrisante
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 6:40 pm
Location: california

To Resign or Not To Resign, that is the Question

Post by sonrisante » Sun May 03, 2009 2:18 am

I am one of those who resign probably less than I should. I find the following:

a) if someone resigns on me when I've got 2 moves to checkmate, it feels like they stole the win. I got credit for it, but I didn't get to actually perform the deed. So I don't like to steal that win from others. I guess this shows my chess immaturity. And yes, it's true, I'm basically a beginner and 95% of the chess I've played in my life has been right here on Net-Chess.

b) I also find that the closing game is very tricky, and I never get to practice if we always resign at an early disadvantage. That would be like picking up the golf-ball once we got it to the green. What's the point of having the hole anyway? I'm sure to get it after a putt or two. But not if I'm not good at my short-game. Same with chess closings. I find the closing to be the most interesting part of the game.

I have at times won because someone made a blunder, and unlike what someone said above, I truly enjoyed it. That, too, I suppose, shows my chess immaturity. But it showed me that even better players than I are sometimes human, and I can learn from that.

That being said, I will resign if I'm down a lot, or in a bad position, or both, after many moves, and the other player is obviously quite astute. But I haven't got a clear rule on when to resign, so I tend to be a bit inconsistent.

The 3-point guideline is a very small margin. I'm usually 3 point behind within a few moves. And it's not about points, it's about checkmate. So I use the point method to help me gauge relative position, but I work hard not to let it distract me from my goal, which is checkmate.

This discussion has helped me see things from other perspectives, so thanks for sharing. I think I'll probably adopt a point score after so many moves, except in the case when I lose my queen due to a stupid unforeseen bishop attack or forked knite pounce that leaves me high and dry, in which I may resign early in utter disgust.

mateau
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:34 pm

resigning

Post by mateau » Sun May 03, 2009 5:08 am

I will resign when my position has deteriorated to an obvious loss. I'm not thinking draw or stalemate unless I'm in an end game where that can be calculated. I also don't "hope" that my opponent will make a mistake and hand the game back to me. I will also resign after I've blundered or overlooked a paticularly nice move where my opponment gaines a tremendous material advantage.

I have also won games that I've been down material and my reason for NOT resigning was I thought that I was winning or had definite winning chances! Later analysis demonstrated that I was not!

I look at resignation with several reasons in mind:

1. I acknowledge my opponents advantage as there is no hope for a win.
2. A tip of the hat.
3. Maintaining ones dignity when facing a loss.
4. Why waste time and energy on a foregone conclusion.
5. Move on to the next game.

Yes maybe if I continued to play I might win because my opponent blunders. But internet chess is basically throwaway chess. I play here to try out new opening ideas in lines that I play over the board. So if one of my ideas wanders into an excruciatingly bad position then I'm not going to prolong the agony.

Before you go yeah right check out my game scores.

I also wouldn't refuse to move or slow down the game out of spite or pride as some on this site are known to do.

Case in point: Grahamtrue.

His position is absolutely busted in both games, in one he has a queen and five pawns to my queen, knight, bishop and five pawns. His solution: just don't move: The Ostrich Gambit, just pretend that it doesn't exist.

It's the same in his other game with me. He has just dropped his queen and is in a mating net. I wouldn't suggest that he resign, yet in such a position I would and I would thank my opponent for a good game.

While I am not at all suggesting that gramhamtrue resign, I would suggest that he show some guts and continue play.

g1104965586
g1104965587

So my vote is either play or resign, Anything else shows nothing but contempt for both the game and the people that you play against. And that is called poor sportsmanship.

mateau
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:34 pm

Post by mateau » Sun May 03, 2009 5:16 am

islanderfan wrote:My point Greg is not my fault if he or she runs out of time. It's part of the game. Would you say that a win in any soprt is better if it was 1-0 or 130-0???
Here's the scenario:

It's your move. You will be mated next move regardless. You also have 89 days on your clock what do you?

A: Show some class and respect for your opponent and resign.
B. Make your move and get checkmated. and thank your opponent for a good game.
C. Ignore your game, don't move and let your clock run out 89 days later or when Greg Miller resets your clock to 10 days.

This is what we are discussing.

islanderfan
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 10:56 pm

Post by islanderfan » Sun May 03, 2009 6:28 am

A: Show some class and respect for your opponent and resign.
B. Make your move and get checkmated. and thank your opponent for a good game.
C. Ignore your game, don't move and let your clock run out 89 days later or when Greg Miller resets your clock to 10 days



Dude are you serious. You need to look at what I said earlier... unless it got deleted.

rawat
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2000 6:00 pm

Rating matters here

Post by rawat » Tue May 12, 2009 4:33 am

I think maybe this issue comes up most often when there is big difference between the rating of the 2 players.

In a game where both players have a very high rating, they are capable of evaluating the strength of the opponent, and how the game will continue. So if one of them is in a relatively bad position, he will resign.

But in a game with two weak players, resigning is not so often an option. The reason is they do not appreciate the different values of their positions. In this case the player with the stronger position is also less likely to think it is bad sportsmanship that the other one don't resign. Also there should be a higher treshold for resigning, because blunders occur frequently, so much that a very bad disadvantage could be equalized.

In a game with one strong player and one weak player, there are two scenarios.

The stronger player is for some reason in a bad position. He should not be so quick to resign. He must put the difference in skill into the equation first. This difference is worth points.

If the weaker player is in a bad position (the normal situation), he maybe should resign. But if he is unable to appreciate how bad his position is, he may continue playing beacuse he don't know any better. That could be annoying for the stronger player.

I'm sure there are many games where one should resign (when all kinds of ninja-tricks have failed). But one should keep in mind these perspectives before concluding about the opponents sportsmanship and respect for the opponent.

mateau
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: Rating matters here

Post by mateau » Tue May 12, 2009 4:58 am

rawat wrote:I'm sure there are many games where one should resign (when all kinds of ninja-tricks have failed). But one should keep in mind these perspectives before concluding about the opponents sportsmanship and respect for the opponent.
No conclusions regarding sportsmanship nor disrespect was rendered regarding players who do not resign.

Rather I did conclude that players who refuse to resign lost position should continue to play.

Refusing to continue playing and letting your clock run out for 1 week of 3 months is a cowardly and despicable act of a sore looser.

That individual is a poor sport as he is shows nothing but contempt for his opponent as he can not bear the thought that he might actually loose a game.

Playing until you are checkmated or resigning before the enevitable is as I said before an act of sportsmanship, much like offering to shake hands and thanking your opponent for a good game.

If a player does not wish to resign I am fine with that. I'll play out the position. The key idea here though is "PLAY OUT THE POSITION."

I have also experienced over-the-board players who when they realise they've blundered or have wandered into a lost position leave the tournament hall in a huff and let their clock run out. That is thumbing your nose at your opponent. Not only are they sore loosers but they are worse winners. In fact I know 2 TD's back in the 70's who have expelled people from their tournaments for doing just that. They get their money back and a little speech on sportsmanship and get dropped from the pairings.

I would never expect anyone to resign a lost position but I did give several reasons why I do.

rawat
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2000 6:00 pm

Post by rawat » Tue May 12, 2009 5:39 am

Rather I did conclude that players who refuse to resign lost position should continue to play.
I of course agree with you there.

Your example on players leaving OTB-tournaments is really extreme.. At least here you just don't get the game up on your list, so you can forget about it and the win comes when it comes.

But to leave a player like that in OTB is so visible, so in-your-face...can't believe anyone want to do that. How can they show their face at the chess club again?

jsnyder
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:10 pm

Re: Rating matters here

Post by jsnyder » Tue May 12, 2009 11:11 am

mateau wrote:....fact I know 2 TD's back in the 70's who have expelled people from their tournaments for doing just that. They get their money back and a little speech on sportsmanship and get dropped from the pairings.
Why would they give their money back. It would be more proper to fine them than give their EF back.

mateau
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:34 pm

Re: Rating matters here

Post by mateau » Tue May 12, 2009 11:54 am

[/quote]
Why would they give their money back. It would be more proper to fine them than give their EF back.[/quote]

These were kids in a couple of scholastic events in the Fischer era. They weren't adults so it was kid stuff. While there are rules granting latitude for TD's regarding unsportsmanlike conduct then there were no specifics including fines.

However even adult GM's are poor sports. Most of the over fifty crowd here probably remember Bobby and his tantrums and of course Alekhine was a terrible drunk. Evidently he once urinated on a lost position.

But I guess we've beaten this topic to death.

It is an act of sportsmanship to face a loss and grant that your opponent defeated you. But it also just as true that lower rated players often do not have much experience "closing" the game as resignation does not give that opportunity. Many games do not even make it to an end game so again end game practice becomes a rare event.

So the decision to resign or not to resign is a personal one and does not require defending or rationalising.

Just play.

Post Reply