People on here are always whining about players who don’t resign early enough. Surely a resignation on move two keeps you all happy.
@Molurus said in #31:
> Technically, he doesn't owe anyone anything.
He does actually. By taking part in a tournament organised by the FIDE, you agree to comply to the FIDE rules and etiquette, and to show good sportsmanship against your opponents.
> Technically, he doesn't owe anyone anything.
He does actually. By taking part in a tournament organised by the FIDE, you agree to comply to the FIDE rules and etiquette, and to show good sportsmanship against your opponents.
@BorisOspasky said in #32:
> People on here are always whining about players who don’t resign early enough. Surely a resignation on move two keeps you all happy.
Imagine if he had just let his clock run.
> People on here are always whining about players who don’t resign early enough. Surely a resignation on move two keeps you all happy.
Imagine if he had just let his clock run.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 1-0? Why? The Sinqufield cup?
@PxJ said in #33:
> He does actually. By taking part in a tournament organised by the FIDE, you agree to comply to the FIDE rules and etiquette, and to show good sportsmanship against your opponents.
I can't think of any specific FIDE regulation that he has violated, can you?
You may think that resigning on the second move is "poor sportsmanship", but I doubt that that definition of sportsmanship is actually unambiguously in the FIDE rules. It's probably not. And if it isn't, no offense, it's just your opinion.
Like it or not, there is no rule against resigning on the second move. Which means a) Carlsen is allowed to do that, and b) he doesn't have to explain it.
> He does actually. By taking part in a tournament organised by the FIDE, you agree to comply to the FIDE rules and etiquette, and to show good sportsmanship against your opponents.
I can't think of any specific FIDE regulation that he has violated, can you?
You may think that resigning on the second move is "poor sportsmanship", but I doubt that that definition of sportsmanship is actually unambiguously in the FIDE rules. It's probably not. And if it isn't, no offense, it's just your opinion.
Like it or not, there is no rule against resigning on the second move. Which means a) Carlsen is allowed to do that, and b) he doesn't have to explain it.
@Molurus Of course it's just my opinion. And the idea that he doesn't owe anything to anyone is just your opinion. And 99% of what people express is also just their opinion. So what?
@PxJ said in #37:
> @Molurus Of course it's just my opinion. And the idea that he doesn't owe anything to anyone is just your opinion. And 99% of what people express is also just their opinion. So what?
No, that's not just my opinion. That is a fact in the sense that no FIDE rule says otherwise.
You said this:
> By taking part in a tournament organised by the FIDE, you agree to comply to the FIDE rules and etiquette, and to show good sportsmanship against your opponents.
Thereby suggesting that he broke FIDE rules and etiquette. No, he didn't. He has every right to resign on move 2, and he doesn't owe you or anyone an explanation for why he resigned. That's just the facts, whether you like them or not.
Now it would be nice if he gave an explanation. Just like the rest of the world I'd be very interested in that. All I am saying is that he is in no way obligated to give a statement. He would probably be in big trouble if he did.
In that spirit I will say that accusations of poor sportsmanship should fall upon someone else, whose name I am not going to say here.
> @Molurus Of course it's just my opinion. And the idea that he doesn't owe anything to anyone is just your opinion. And 99% of what people express is also just their opinion. So what?
No, that's not just my opinion. That is a fact in the sense that no FIDE rule says otherwise.
You said this:
> By taking part in a tournament organised by the FIDE, you agree to comply to the FIDE rules and etiquette, and to show good sportsmanship against your opponents.
Thereby suggesting that he broke FIDE rules and etiquette. No, he didn't. He has every right to resign on move 2, and he doesn't owe you or anyone an explanation for why he resigned. That's just the facts, whether you like them or not.
Now it would be nice if he gave an explanation. Just like the rest of the world I'd be very interested in that. All I am saying is that he is in no way obligated to give a statement. He would probably be in big trouble if he did.
In that spirit I will say that accusations of poor sportsmanship should fall upon someone else, whose name I am not going to say here.
@Molurus you said in #32 he doesn't owe anything to anyone. That's technically wrong: he does owe something to someone, as my post #33 explained.
In addition, one could easily argue that he broke the rule 12.1
> The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
In addition, one could easily argue that he broke the rule 12.1
> The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
@Molurus said in #36:
> Like it or not, there is no rule against resigning on the second move. Which means a) Carlsen is allowed to do that, and b) he doesn't have to explain it.
Actually resigning on the second move can be interpreted as throwing a game to unfairly put other players at advantage or disadvantage and manipulate the outcome of the competition. It can also be interpreted as sandbagging. Both are a form of cheating. We know that Magnus did not mean any of that, but the arbiters do not need to be mind readers and guess the player's motivation if he does not explain himself.
But of course, they are not going to sanction Magnus, because some are just more equal than others.
> Like it or not, there is no rule against resigning on the second move. Which means a) Carlsen is allowed to do that, and b) he doesn't have to explain it.
Actually resigning on the second move can be interpreted as throwing a game to unfairly put other players at advantage or disadvantage and manipulate the outcome of the competition. It can also be interpreted as sandbagging. Both are a form of cheating. We know that Magnus did not mean any of that, but the arbiters do not need to be mind readers and guess the player's motivation if he does not explain himself.
But of course, they are not going to sanction Magnus, because some are just more equal than others.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.