I think not resigning is akin to saying "I'm such a poor player, I didn't even see it coming". I'm guessing that's why it's become chess-culture to resign.
-Mark R.
isn't resignation a form of disrespect
Sort:
anyone else
Not at all! In fact playing an obviously losing game out is disrespectful. Let's say you're up an entire queen and the opponent has no compensation. He should resign because instead of wasting each others' time take a longer break until the next round.
Maybe it is, if you're a sadistic and are playing your slave...
chessmaster54458 skrev:
shouldn't we advocate all pro chess games to be played out till mate.
I would only say all games up until 1200 should be be played until mate.
it is important to learn to win a won game and look out for stalemate traps and time pressure and more.
as you get better you will know when it is a waste of time to play on and when you can fight on.
Do you fill in the rest of the Xs and Os after you get 3 in a row in Tic Tac Toe? No? Neither do I.
I don't think either one is inherently bad. A game doesn't end just because you want it to. You can think the position is easy, you can think of what you'll have for dinner, it doesn't matter, the position is what it is. If your opponent is not mated, he's not mated. You can wish he was mated, you can believe strongly that he will be mated in the future, but that doesn't make him mated.
I don't think the game should turn into willing things out of the position, or telepathy from an angry opponent that wants you to resign. I have enough problems to work out trying to decide what chances I have, what my mood is regarding what I feel like playing out, now I have to deal with my opponent staring me down, ready to yell at me afterwards for playing too long?
btickler skrev:
Do you fill in the rest of the Xs and Os after you get 3 in a row in Tic Tac Toe? No? Neither do I.
actually 3 in a row is the same as checkmate. Nobody continues in neither games. We are talking about what happens before checkmate.
I find it very disrespectful when players play to the death in otb...it's their way of saying, I think you're crap and I'm fishing for chances to win back material later or stalemate
I find it puzzling that this debate even exists.
If one player is clearly winning, then this player should not need many moves to demonstrate the win, so why complain that the opponent doesn't resign? Simply play the winning series of moves. The reluctance to do so seems to indicate laziness or lack of confidence (conveniently projected onto the opponent's alleged "rudeness").
On the other hand, if the win is not so clear or easy, then the game should continue.
And also consider that a position that is "clearly winning" to one person does not always seem that way to the opponent (especially below the expert level). So again, why rudely badger an opponent who is unsure whether resignation is justified? Do martial artists, or atheletes in general, complain when their opponent's don't surrender before the scheduled end of the contest?
I sometimes resign against equal or stronger players, but only when I'm convinced that I have no resources remaining (including stalemate). But I'm not offended at all if any opponent, even much lower-rate ones, play on until checkmate. In fact, I welcome the chance to practice mating technique, even if it's the simple K+R vs K.
I've often seen the objection that an opponent with a losing position is "wasting time". But if the win is so easy, just do it already. "Do your talking on the board" I like to say. Or "show me, don't tell me". And if someone doesn't have time to devote to the agreed upon time control, then why did this impatient player agree to the time control?
I'm so tired of hearing chess players complain about opponents who are playing completely within the rules, under time controls that were known to both players in advance. Why are there so many whiny chess players? I think humans complain too much in general (and I'm fully aware of the irony of my complaining about complainers), but this annoying character flaw seems to be over-represented among on-line chess players.
No it isn't
Someone who complains about a player resigning is!
And also a jerk
bobbyDK wrote:
btickler skrev:
Do you fill in the rest of the Xs and Os after you get 3 in a row in Tic Tac Toe? No? Neither do I.
actually 3 in a row is the same as checkmate. Nobody continues in neither games. We are talking about what happens before checkmate.
On the contrary...having a piece up in the right position is identical to placing the third X and then drawing a line through it. The rest of the game means nothing.
I don't mind if someone wants to play it out and prove it to themselves, but nevertheless, some positions are not "winning" anymore, they are simply "won".
Do you mean to tell me you play out every single K+Q or K+R vs. K endgame to checkmate? That's just silly. Once an opposing player is in a won position and demonstrates via their moves that they also understand the position is won and how to complete the win, then it is time to resign and move on to the next game.
Let me ask this: if you are playing rock-paper-scissors, best 3 out of 5, and your opponent wins the first 3...do you insist on 2 more rounds? After all, you can't prove the match will end in a win for your opponent. They might keel over and die 20 seconds later.
The fact that a chess game is effectively over is only a more complex construct, but no less a sure thing past a certain point. Now if a GM plays an informal game with you and respectfully points out at some point that you've lost, but you don't see why yet, should you resign? No. If they then point out a tactic and you at that point understand that you're in a lost (not losing, but completely lost) position, should you resign? Yes. That way you get to play more games with the GM in the limited time you have, which is certainly more valuable, and more fun, too.
Now, remove the "GM" above and replace it with any level of player. Same thing. Respect for your opponent.
If your opponent is not ready to throw in the towel yet, respect that too.
That doesn't mean one has to be a pushover. I don't resign until the loss is 100% clear. There's a clear line. Some people might say "well, play on and maybe you can stalemate them...". If you have a reasonable drawing possibility sitting on the board (perpetual check, capturing their last pawn when they are 2 knights up, etc.) or if you have a viable stalemate possibility present, go ahead and play it out; but if the position is lost, and there's none of the above visible, then playing it out hoping that something will magically appear is not a good use of your time, or your opponent's.
For the 1 extra win in a 1000 you could get this way, you will be far better served by resigning and playing another game, or analyzing the game you just lost with your opponent, etc. because you can actually learn something thereby.
chessmaster54458 wrote:
shouldn't we advocate all pro chess games to be played out till mate.
No. You are either a troll or extremely ignorant about chess.
chessmaster54458 wrote:
shouldn't we advocate all pro chess games to be played out till mate.
No.
respect, disrespect...tomayto, tomahto...
the game is the game. the rules are there. somebody wants to play a losing game right up to the end or NOT , let em. what's the big deal?
I'd never get my panties in a bunch over a chess game.
Contrary to love making, resigning in chess is classy if no options left.
shouldn't we advocate all pro chess games to be played out till mate.