There have been a number of discussions in these forums lately related to players not resigning when they "should", etc. I was wondering: what do you consider the proper etiquette to be? Should a player resign as soon as their position becomes hopeless? Would you feel cheated if they resigned before you get to complete your Tal-like attack? Is there any sort of 'proper etiquette' on this at all?

I'll add my thoughts later, but first I want to know what the chess.com community thinks.

there are many views and arguments on this. I'd say there is no "right" or "wrong". If you want to learn from it you can still play on, I personally prefer to resign on lost positions. Mainly because I'd hope my opponent would do the same.

In professional matches it would be strange to resume a lost game, but since most of us here aren't I'd say do what you like.

If I think that I have no chance at all of winning or putting up a decent fight then I will resign, rather than postpone the inevitable.  Not a matter of 'etiquette' but common sense; entirely up to the individual, and everyone thinks differently of course.

It depends a little on yer opponent too, if i know im playing a strong player and sometimes if i go a piece down and see they are in a strong position while i am in a weak position.. sometimes that is enough fer me to resign. Simply because i know the odds of me winning are very slim at that stage and if i didnt resign it would be because i would be hoping they would lose...by a blunder etc. To me, that is an element of etiquette - i would rather resign with honour than hang on and hope they make a mistake. But...thats just me and i dont expect others to think the same way.

Sometimes if im playing someone that is not much stronger than me I will battle on perhaps until a couple of pieces down. 

The odd thing is though, i have seen some people post here who claim they get annoyed when their opponents resign... so i dont think i can make everyone happy heh. The way i see it is if they were going to win (except by them making a mistake) then they should be happy fer the win and realise that me resigning is a sign of respect fer them... not disrespect!

All that said, i dont mind when opponents do not resign, even when they are clearly going to lose. Its all fer fun at the end o the day.

Pistoleer's post nicely presented a few of the issues I had in mind. Once in a "Live" game here, I blundered away a piece and had a pretty weak position so I typed "good game" and resigned. My opponent said "that's dissapointing" and closed the game window.

On the other hand, in another "Live" game I reached the following position, and offered a draw - and my opponent refused! The game was soon drawn by 3-fold repetition, of course.

   Resigning a lost position in my opinion is purely optional.  If it makes my opponent angry that I don't resign as soon as he or she believes or wishes I should have, "sorry".   I have been asked to resign when I was unable to realize how my position was a lost one.  In those cases couldn't help but perceive as a little unsportsmanlike as I would never say to an opponent, "You are going to lose why don't you just go ahead and quit".   Not only is it demeaning if one hasn't realized he was playing the lost position but spoils the suspense of the game and perhaps most importantly could potentially spoil a real learning experience.  No good reason for asking for a resignation comes to mind for me.  Certainly not in turnbased since the majority of games I play are 3d/move----? What's the sudden rush to get out of the game?  Moreover, if my opponent wanted the game to end sooner he should have planned / executed a better game plan.  It is my opponents burden to checkmate me in other words and not my burden to recognize my lost position and resign the instant it is a sealed deal.   

I think it's far more pressing to get people to agree on when to accept a draw.  Most people whose rating is higher than yours will not accept draws because they "lose points" for the draw.

 

If you feel like you have no chance to force mate in say, the next 12 moves, then I would offer your opponent a draw.  If you have a definite need to win (like in a tournament where the leaders are seperated by a small margin), then I would continue to play on, granted of course that the outcome could be anything else but a draw.  But if the position is hopeless, then I would expect that at least one of the players could see it, and tactfully point it out.  Don't harrass your opponent into resigning - that is in just as bad taste as not resigning.

 

It would be nice if one of the Chess.com staff could act as a mediator in situations where the game is continuing indefinitely.

Lol...  I agree with Niven42 regarding the draw issue....it is frustrating to continue moving the pieces knowing that it is to be a draw when the other wants to keep going anyway......  we need a feature to "go on vacation" vs a player like that, but continue to be able to play our other games!

However, regarding the etiquitte of resignation........  I believe good etiquitte is to play on until one wishes to resign or is in checkmate.......  Asking one to resign, however tactful your effort may seem, is very poor etiquette.  Offering a draw is much different from asking for them to resign.  I agree with Slowhand, the burden of ending the game is upon the player who has that "can't lose" position.  It just seems extremely arrogant to request/demand one to resign.  It is not your decision to make, regardless of how clear it may seem to you.  It also seems very childish to be insulted if one does resign.....or chooses not to.......  Good ettiquitte is being graceful in victory or defeat ....      

I think there are two reasons to play online chess... for fun and for education. I think for many higher rated players the education aspect of lost positions runs out much sooner than the lower rated players. The fun of playing a won position can run out when the task becomes purely technical...

But the game is the property of both players, and if either player sees either educational or entertainment value left in the game, then the game should go on.

I'm not a real high rated player, but playing out a technically won ending (after all suspense of competition is gone... meaning the outcome is a foregone conclusion) doesn't hold a lot of appeal to me... nevertheless I'm more than happy to play it out if my opponent is going to learn something.. or at least enjoy seeing my less-than-adequate endgame technique.

The thing to remember though is... if you make a player play out an ending after the suspense is gone... even if you learn something from it, he may have lost interest in the game long ago.. and if this happens you may not get a rematch. Thats just the way of it.. just like you shouldn't have to resign a game before you understand exactly why you are resigning, he doesn't have to put himself through the agony of playing you again.

So once the fun and education is gone from a game... resign. If one or the other is still present... play on.

Resignation is certainly showing respect for opponent but can't be asked for as newcomers would not be aware of standard losing positions or may be learning from the positions about end games

I myself have gotten annoyed when someone refuses to resign in a lost position. It becomes annoying to wait 7 days or more for example for someone to move a king and you deliver mate in a king+queen vs king situation. I don't think anyone should be forced to resign, but it is proper etiquette to give your opponent the benifit of the doubt that he/she will be able to finish the game adequately. For those of you who don't know in real tournament games a player in a lost position (a piece down) is expected to resign on  the spot (if he doesen't have compensation) playing on is seen as ¨unsportsmanlike behavior¨ and you can even get kicked out of the tournament for such a thing.  

Yes attittude of the losing player can be a question mark if he simply makes you wait. It is another story if he is keeps playing within reasonable time as he was playing from the beginning to that stage of game

oginschile wrote:

So once the fun and education is gone from a game... resign. If one or the other is still present... play on.

---

 Well said.  I couldn't agree more.

I think that as long as you play within the rules there is no right or wrong.  I resign when I feel that if I was to win it would require my opponent to play so badly that I wouldn't feel like it was a worthwhile win.

I was playing a much weaker player, but I was down 4 major pieces.  (So is he really a "weaker" player; it begs the question.)  I did get a sadistic joy out of watching him sweat while I marched 4 pawns down to promotion.  I didn't quite make it and when I realized all hope was hope was gone, I resigned. 

I was playing a 2000 rated player He was clearly losing and stopped making moves. Finally out of boredom I resigned as I found he was playing 202 games at that time and was delaying on all boards where he was losing Just my experience for the record

This is an interesting question. It is a matter of the opponent's perseverance to fight till the end. It could be that he/she is playing for a stalemate even if he/she is a few pieces down. I personally have forced numerous stalemates in over the board play, sometimes even when the opponent is queen up. Ofcourse, if you are convinced he/she is a highly rated player it is better to resign. 

Infact, even if you are a bishop and Knight up against a lone king, it needs correct technique to force mate. Always, the onus is on the winner to convince the loser that he is winning and will win.

I have developed the habit of asking if my opponent has any objection to my resigning when I am in a terminal position (which happens quite a lot !). Usually, of course they say `sure`, but occasionally some one wants to play to mate and that`s understandable I think at the lower ratings. Bringing a good position to fruition is sometimes very tough and takes practise.

When playing against much better players, I generally give up more quickly as they tend not to make obvious blunders.(rats)

 

re your issue, I guess at the top people are highly competitive and if they can bore you into resigning, well it still counts. One does tend to be more keen to play a winning rather than a losing game...just go with the time constraints, no ? 

 

I dare suggest that the players who think that their opponent should resign once they have an obvious loss are also the players who have previously blown such a winning position, actually encouraging players to play on in "hopeless" positions!Personally, I resign if I consider that I am lost, i.e. too much material down, unanswerable threats, with the exception of where I see the possibility of a swindle. If the swindle is successful, I don’t feel sympathy for my opponent.Those complaining about their opponents playing on in the hope of a mistake providing salvation only have to consider that it was exactly their opponent’s mistake that has provided them with the winning opportunity and that one of the oldest chess maxims goes along the lines, “The winner is the one who makes the 2^nd last mistake!”It is a personal matter for each individual to choose when they resign and one factor that should never be considered in that decision is whether your opponent thinks you should resign. If you feel that your opponent is being annoying, then finish the game as quickly and neatly as possible to clearly illustrate just how lost the position was.

 

vijaykulkarni wrote: I was playing a 2000 rated player He was clearly losing and stopped making moves. Finally out of boredom I resigned as I found he was playing 202 games at that time and was delaying on all boards where he was losing Just my experience for the record

---

then I understand why his rating has become 2000. I get this too sometimes and it is one of the most annoying things ive encountered here. Mostly I just wait and play on until it's over.

ps. I think asking someone to resign is bad mostly but I dont really bother if its asked politely. You can always ask right?