Here's another point. Presumably at a high level, it would indeed be good manners to resign if one's opponent has a rook and king against a king only. However, I find that while able to get themselves into this position, quite a few players lack the necessary technique to win in this position, or even with a queen and king. Should I deny myself the possibility of a draw out of what some chess players consider 'good manners'?
Non-chess-players usually find it a bit strange that chess games are not played out until the end and are disappointed they don't see a checkmate on the board.
Just imagine a football game, with one team 7-0 behind after 70 minutes, and the loosing team would stop playing and leave the field - fans of both teams would be upset and expect that the loosing team at least shows some resistance and character for the remaining 10 minutes.
The difference is I guess that classical chess games would drag on for hours in a lost position, with often no doubt at all about the outcome. However, if there is a spark of hope left, you should always play on I guess.
Just imagine a football game, with one team 7-0 behind after 70 minutes, and the loosing team would stop playing and leave the field - fans of both teams would be upset and expect that the loosing team at least shows some resistance and character for the remaining 10 minutes.
The difference is I guess that classical chess games would drag on for hours in a lost position, with often no doubt at all about the outcome. However, if there is a spark of hope left, you should always play on I guess.
For me it comes down to what you are trying to get from playing that particular game.
If it's a serious tournament that you really want to win, then by all means play as long as you see any chance of a win/draw.
While playing a normal online game, things are different. Are you playing for enjoyment? Are you playing for the thrill of winning? Or the thrill of your rating going up? Are you playing because you learnt some new opening and want to play a few quick games with it for practice? Are you playing to practice some particular aspect of the game?
Sometimes when I am recovering from a tilt, and feel like my rating should be much higher than it is currently, I play till the bitter end.
When I am playing for fun I resign even in equal positions if it is a position I don't want to play. (I have even resigned on move 2 to my opponents playing openings I don't like to play).
And very occasionally I want to practice my defensive skill so I purposefully play into a bad position and try to defend it.
If it's a serious tournament that you really want to win, then by all means play as long as you see any chance of a win/draw.
While playing a normal online game, things are different. Are you playing for enjoyment? Are you playing for the thrill of winning? Or the thrill of your rating going up? Are you playing because you learnt some new opening and want to play a few quick games with it for practice? Are you playing to practice some particular aspect of the game?
Sometimes when I am recovering from a tilt, and feel like my rating should be much higher than it is currently, I play till the bitter end.
When I am playing for fun I resign even in equal positions if it is a position I don't want to play. (I have even resigned on move 2 to my opponents playing openings I don't like to play).
And very occasionally I want to practice my defensive skill so I purposefully play into a bad position and try to defend it.
@pawngrid
It's not the non resigning that's the problem.
It's the wasting of time in a dead position that is the problem with online chess.
It's not the non resigning that's the problem.
It's the wasting of time in a dead position that is the problem with online chess.
I'd add to my earlier post (#2) that if i'm fortunate to snag a game with a higher rated opponent, i will resign more quickly so as not to waste their time. I might ask if they are open to playing through so that i can learn from them. If they don't respond i resign. Once in a while they say yes and we play through to my eventual demise, but i learn something valuable. I'm grateful when they say yes, and i understand when they don't.
I really don't understand the apparent outrage caused by a failure to resign. A player has a right to play on to the end and should be able to judge whether or not he or she has a chance of avoiding defeat. If the opponent tries to force resignation beyond actual chess moves, this may be seen as bullying. The judgement as to whether or not the game is over, sans checkmate, should be left to the putative loser, and the winner should be magnanimous enough not to huff and puff.
Not resigning in a totally lost position, with no hopes of winning or drawing on time is poor sportsmanship, but it's fine.
But
Not resigning means you are implicitly allowing your opponent to toy with you.
Now if you're toying with your opponent, instead of mating them outright, it means you are implicitly putting yourself at risk of stalemate tricks, etc.
Either way, it's all good.
What's not good and deserve to be put in chess hell, are those who let the clock run out in hopeless positions. These are total time wasters where only they have a say in the matter. And their say = let's waste each other's time.
Unlike the situations described above where both players have the option to end the game anytime.
But
Not resigning means you are implicitly allowing your opponent to toy with you.
Now if you're toying with your opponent, instead of mating them outright, it means you are implicitly putting yourself at risk of stalemate tricks, etc.
Either way, it's all good.
What's not good and deserve to be put in chess hell, are those who let the clock run out in hopeless positions. These are total time wasters where only they have a say in the matter. And their say = let's waste each other's time.
Unlike the situations described above where both players have the option to end the game anytime.
Most of the time being annoyed at the opponent for resigning really is an ego problem as OP points out. If you're winning so hard that you think the opponent should resign, then go ahead and beat him. Use the opportunity to exercise yourself and find the most forcing, most efficient way to finish the game—it won’t kill you and it will improve your chess. (This is more relevant for amateurs of course.) Most importantly, it’s a good way to practice YOUR OWN sportsmanship by “not even getting mad.”
@coledavis said in #16:
> If the opponent tries to force resignation beyond actual chess moves, this may be seen as bullying. The judgement as to whether or not the game is over, sans checkmate, should be left to the putative loser, and the winner should be magnanimous enough not to huff and puff.
This. In particular, coming out and verbally telling the opponent to resign is definitely bullying, barring one exception. It shouldn't be tolerated, at least not in OTB chess.
The one exception where it is more reasonable to be upset at the opponent for not resigning is cases where the opponent is obviously stalling. In online chess I think it is appropriate to gently encourage the opponent to resign in the chat, or troll them a little by linking to a clip of that one scene from *The Queen’s Gambit*. But do it friendly, do it exactly once, and take a chill pill if they decline. (Also, *caveat loquator*: if the opponent is toxic then saying anything is stirring up a bee’s nest.) In OTB chess I think the winning player has the option to pause the clock, call the TD, and calmly accuse the opponent of stalling—but he needs to make sure he has a compelling case that the opponent is intentionally stalling, and not just going through the five stages of grief in his head. Maybe the TD does nothing but at least the winning player communicated his annoyance to the opponent in a way that is above reproach.
@coledavis said in #16:
> If the opponent tries to force resignation beyond actual chess moves, this may be seen as bullying. The judgement as to whether or not the game is over, sans checkmate, should be left to the putative loser, and the winner should be magnanimous enough not to huff and puff.
This. In particular, coming out and verbally telling the opponent to resign is definitely bullying, barring one exception. It shouldn't be tolerated, at least not in OTB chess.
The one exception where it is more reasonable to be upset at the opponent for not resigning is cases where the opponent is obviously stalling. In online chess I think it is appropriate to gently encourage the opponent to resign in the chat, or troll them a little by linking to a clip of that one scene from *The Queen’s Gambit*. But do it friendly, do it exactly once, and take a chill pill if they decline. (Also, *caveat loquator*: if the opponent is toxic then saying anything is stirring up a bee’s nest.) In OTB chess I think the winning player has the option to pause the clock, call the TD, and calmly accuse the opponent of stalling—but he needs to make sure he has a compelling case that the opponent is intentionally stalling, and not just going through the five stages of grief in his head. Maybe the TD does nothing but at least the winning player communicated his annoyance to the opponent in a way that is above reproach.
Perhaps arrogant, but no more so than playing on to the bitter end in a dead lost position is disrespectful to your opponent. But it depends on the time control and level of opposition I suppose.
When I play my friends, we will resign if we reach the point of 'no comeback'.
But we know each others strengths and weaknesses, so can be reasonably sure that the game is over.
with unknown opponents, you don't know if they can hold a winning position.
Even if the player is much higher in elo- they might not be in peak form, they might not be very good at the opening that was played. In some cases it could have been years since they had to close out a game from that position, so they have forgotten the little tricks/memonics, making it possible for a draw/stalemate.
But we know each others strengths and weaknesses, so can be reasonably sure that the game is over.
with unknown opponents, you don't know if they can hold a winning position.
Even if the player is much higher in elo- they might not be in peak form, they might not be very good at the opening that was played. In some cases it could have been years since they had to close out a game from that position, so they have forgotten the little tricks/memonics, making it possible for a draw/stalemate.