All of these cases are anecdotal and have hapened to me:

Case 1: Opponent asked me to resign as "I am clearly lost." I thought I had a slight chance to weasle out a draw since I had two connected passers (one a rook pawn ^_^) vs. a Queen and his King was WAAAAY over there. But I resigned anyway and I have regretted it ever since. I should have realized that the only time people ask someone to resign is when they are impatient (ready to make a game turning mistake!) or they don't know any other way to win.

Also, this goes against GM teaching. You don't resign a game just because there is no possible way to win. This is because as an amateur (okay, I won some money in a USCF chess tourney once but I couldn't live offa the third place money forever) there I do not know all of the forced wins in the universe. This is why a lot of players are not resigning. They still see chances to draw! It may be poor judgement but it si their judgement to make!

Case 2: Playing around in the end game. I converted an easy win into a draw. It's playing like this that encourages everyone to play on against me. I am up by two pieces when all of a sudden 'oops' allowed him to get a stalemate.

Case 3: I offerred a draw to someone in a book draw position. They refused. Okay so we play on. This makes sense to me since I have only the Rook and he has the Rook and pawn. Also, I am higher rated and who doesn't want the scalp of a higher rated player? So of course he is going to do his best to test his ideas for a win while it is up to me to use perfect play to prove the draw. I would do the same thing in his position. Test the opponent to make sure he knows his endgame lore. After all we aren't super GMs so we might miss a finesse.

Case 4: Someone keeps offering me a draw each move. This is allowed by all the rules of chess! A TD can be called over to ask the player to stop but there are no TDs online (in cyberspace nobody can hear you scream).

Bottom line: Its not a problem with rude players so much as a problem with intolerant players. Chess would be changed for the better if all the games had to end in a mate, any mate, checkmate or stalemate. But as a tolerant person I have learned to put up with the opinions of others no matter how wrong they are. ^_^

I think even if you know you will be mate in  it could be interesting anyways to play those 6 turns just for the reflexion and slow analisys of those 6 turns.

My aproach (averyone has a different one I guess) is playing for learning.

And therefore sometimes I want to play a game ending just for studying and learning.

Of course resigning ends the game immediatly but WHAT IS THE POINT TO IT?

I mean unless you quickly want your score grow up this has no interest.

But if someone plays only to see a big number inhis rating I think this person is missing the two biggest interests: FUN and LEARNING

Asking someone to resign is in bad taste I believe, but I also deplore the lack of chess social skills among many players. What I mean is that when it's evident that someone is going to lose, he or she still keeps playing. If you go a minor piece down and have no obvious counter-attacking chances (or no plan; that is, you lost the piece because of a mistake), just resign. Same if you lose the exchange. There's no point in dragging the game out. It's annoying. Some people have this idea that chess has to go on until a mate (see pawnshover, whose attitudes are part of the problem; I'm tolerant too, but this has nothing to do with that)....well news flash: it doesn't. Unless it's an obvious miss (like Kramnik with Fritz), a chess game should never have to go until mate; it should be evident a few moves before mate who is going to win, and at that point that person losing should resign. This doesn't have to occur just with mating sequences, especially since not everyone can see them. But it is obvious to everyone if they are massive material down or something. Right now I have an endgame where I have a pawn, a rook, and the king against my opponent's two pawns and the king. This person still keeps on playing. That's annoying....I definitely understand the frustration anaxagoras is feeling, but then again, those people are technically doing nothing wrong: they're just playing the game and abiding by its rules. The irritation is just human emotion seeping through....

I agree with Batgirl, to a point.  If you say "mate in __", and especially if you point it out, then resignation is the proper response.  However...why even say "mate in __"?  Why not know that you are going to win, play the game out and ask your opponent if he would like to see the combination more clearly on the analysis board feature (something I love, by the way [the analysis board featured on this site, that is]) AFTER you've won?  If the losing opponent would like to know more about the game, his curiosity should be apparent.  In a very serious tournament, talking at all is usually kibitzing and the arbiter will put a stop to it or, if the rule is trespassed multiple times, the talker will be disqualified.  So...I don't think it's impolite to point the combination out during the game, but I think the prudent thing to do is keep quiet about the game and play the inevitable combination out.  If you're the giddy type and want the opponent to resign the only way to ask would be as Batgirl said...as politely as you can when asking for a resignation.

As for me, I would just as soon not say a damned thing and play the combo out.  If I don't like you, I won't even offer analysis I will just leave the board.

Two possibilities 1) just announcing a check mate or 2) announcing a check mate and proving it by providing a full analysis.

Case 1)

If player A announces that there is a check mate in x moves he should expect that player B would want to see it demonstrated by actually playing the game. If player B can see that the claim is correct he could very well resign. Asking him to resign is completely pointless.

Case 2)

If player A announces that there is a check mate in x moves and actually expect player B to resign he should prove the check mate by providing a complete analysis. Asking him to resign is completely pointless.

 ***
So in either case asking another player to resign is completely pointless. It is also bad taste as others have pointed out.

I think it is possible sometimes that the person with the stronger position announcing mate in 6 moves may have missed a possibility.  I know there have been times when I was sure I had someone and they surprised me with a move I hadn't considered.  I think it is best to play it out.  Also the person with the weaker position may try for a stalemate.  Which to my way of thinking means they are still planning and working the game to their best advantage.  A stalemate means no one wins.  That is the way I understand the game.  Also if they achieve the stalemate, it provides them some dignity in achieving this end.  It also is such a great battle, the next step is a rematch.

jediMaster.......let the Force be with you.

"It's bragging"

 

No. "Mate in 6" is an irrefutable fact.  Stating a fact isn't bragging and announcing mate is traditional, as is resigning under such circumstances.  Announcing a forced mate isn't impolite, but not resigning or offering to resign, at that point, would be. The relative strength of the players is inconsequential.

If I had absolute confidence that they were correct in their analysis, sure I'd resign. But someone not only announcing the mate but also demanding a resignation smacks of desperation or impatience, so that might make me consider playing on in case they made a mistake or in fact hadn't properly analysed the situation.

  

The original question was around if YOU knew the player was correct about "mate in 6"...

if I did know....game over...try again. I'm cool with someone askin' me to resign if I SEE IT!!! (more like 2-4 move to mate!) If not...game on!

This is a competive game. If the moves can be backed up, it really isn't bragging...it's just tellin' it how it is.

 If this offends you, it might be time to pull your panties up and just play some chess! if not.....checkers.

Because the rules of chess state that the game is not over until (Checkmate, Stalemate, 3 fold repetition, draw agreed etc.) it's over who cares if the other person resigns or not? Otherwise there would be a rule that states in a provable lost position resignation would be mandatory. Then we would all have to quit playing chess because the only move on the board would be 1.e4, and Black must resign because theoretically he's lost.

chuckhowie wrote:

 If this offends you, it might be time to pull your panties up and just play some chess! if not.....checkers.

---

I hate all forms of chess variants, but this one has my attention. What are the rules? Drop a pawn and off with the socks etc?

 

Etienne wrote:

Resigning when it's lost is polite, but not resigning should not been seen as "impolite". Resigning is being polite, but ASKING for a politeness is rude.

---

Whether or not if you see mate in 6. Is it unstortsmanship, impolite, or however you put it to tell someone "you sholud resign"  I very much beileve so. If you win in 6 move ...oh, well good game. but suggest I resign is not called for.

Etienne said it best "ASKING for a politeness is rude"

erik wrote:

how about c) play it out because a mate in 6 is cool! :)

i actually think asking someone to resign is ALWAYS in poor taste. i think saying MATE in 6 is fine, but to ask to resign is not appropriate in my humble opinion. 

---

I like this quote and add that one might feel like the enemy deserves the mate he/she has worked for the whole game.  Of course it all depends on the person, In the original situation that anazagoras set out in this thread I would resign--but that is just me.

But really, what would be the objective of pointing out mate in six? I'd think that fact by itself is a request for one to resign. If you find the declaration "I think you should resign" objectionable, there shouldn't be much difference in how you feel about being told you have no play after six moves. Both would come across as objectionable even if stressing the obvious would be rubbing it in.

 

A formal request to resign may be informative, in case you hadn't noticed that the game ends in six moves. If indeed, it's mate in six where is the sense in continuing with the game? So, why not simply consider it in that light and if true, accept defeat graciously? I think what is unsportmanship is grumbling about the fact that it's being pointed out to you. I'm inclined to believe the complaint of impoliteness is actually a cover that agonizes over a lost game.   

Have any of you thought about the option that the player might not even notice that the other player made a comment?

It has happened several times for me that I suddenly noticed that the other player had made a comment earlier on the game, it could be several moves earlier. Then I might say something like "Oh, I just noticed your comment bla, bla".

Usually I am focused on the game and not on making or reading comments so above situation happens very easily. With a few players I might have a conversation during the game and therefore pay some attention to possible comments, but for most of the games I focus on the position on the board.

I think asking someone to resign is rather poor form.  But I was clearly outmatched by a much stronger opponent and he told me mate in 6 and showed me how he has going to do it. I would resign and thank him for the lesson.

BrooksJ wrote: I think asking someone to resign is rather poor form.  But I was clearly outmatched by a much stronger opponent and he told me mate in 6 and showed me how he has going to do it. I would resign and thank him for the lesson.

---

I completely agree with this. I'm here to learn as much as I'm here to play. Telling me that you're going to beat me in 6 moves doesn't teach me a thing. Show me where you're going and I'll have a better chance to learn from my mistakes. Besides, I'm not experienced enough to know if they're bluffing or not.

Instead of shaking hands and saying good luck before we play, we should shake hands and each ask if the other would like to resign and get it out of the way.

bendcat wrote:

 

Wow! I see some formulas here, I think were talking about resignation, right, actually it is generally considered proper chess etiquette to resign clearly lost positions. The proper time to resign should vary with one’s chess ability.

Most beginners should probably play on until they are checkmated. But more advanced players should resign clearly lost positions when they are certain that if they were on the other side of the position, they could beat even a master.

 

It is rude and unsportsmanlike to abandon a lost position without resigning so as to allow the clock or time left to run out.

 

Here's a way to think about it:

maybe in some reason players were not allowed to resign, or the players nature is never to give up.

---