Here is how I understand your argument.
There is a forced checkmate. Both players see it. The winner asks the loser to resign. If the loser resigns, then it is a polite action. If the loser does not resign, then his action is in some kind of neutral place between politeness and impoliteness. Is this correct?
Yes as he abides the rules and is not stretching them to abuse. Maybe he just likes it better to have the full annotation, simply more beautiful and if he plays quickly just for the form and not trying to piss you off by taking his time, I think it is correct. Of course, when i want to do this, I ask my opponent first, but playing quickly which might take you 2 minutes, even less probably, of time is not being impolite I think. If he's stretching the time he takes for his move, knowing that it is pointless, then this is impolite.
In my opinion, of course.
I agree its polite to resign but NOT to resign, it depends on the situation
maybe we can ask him,
Why don't you resign even you know the forced mate in 6 moves?
Then now we can precisely judged him from his answer.
If the loser does not resign, then his action is in some kind of neutral place between politeness and impoliteness. Is this correct?
I know its hard to wrap your mind around if you always see things in white and black, but it really doesn't have to be one or the other. At least that is the way I see it.
This would suggest that the ethics of when to resign do not conform to rules of logical inference.
Normally...
if p then q
therefore
if -p then -q...
This is not in argument form, so I will assume you meant to write the following:
If P then Q
~P
Therefore ~Q
This is an invalid argument form. It commits the logical fallacy of 'denying the antecedent.' Perhaps you meant to write down the valid argument form 'Modus Tollens', which is as follows:
~Q
Therefore ~P
Sorry about the pointless comment. Being a logician, I had to point that out.
I know I am criticizing everything, so I just wanted to take the space to say that this is a great forum topic, and so far, a very good debate.
b) Resign
But before you resign, compliment them on a well played game but make sure you let them know that asking you to resign was inappropriate and rude.
That's ok . There's nothing wrong with that. I completely understand that. He has to mate you in those moves, however do you take offense if he say "resign mate in 6"
Ugh, pretty embarrasing to get that backward. I used to do pretty well at logic, but that was a blunder.
Still, you have no justification for saying that I always see everything in black and white. That's a fallacy of moving from the particular to the universal.
Moreover, there are many moral choices people face where there is very little ground between one decision and the other. So sometimes I can see grey area and sometimes I don't.
To hijack slightly...
Do you think it's disrespectful to force someone to play out an obvious endgame?
For example, I've recently finished up 3 games with people on this site where they've ended with only a king, and I have either a king and rook or king and queen. The mate is clearly going to occur, why make me go through the motions? Especially with a rook, it can take a number of quite obvious, boring moves to get there.
Surely it's ettiquete to resign out of respect? I'm hardly going to make a mistake under those circumstances!
Yes, forcing your opponent to play out King and Queen vs King is disrespectful, in my opinion, if you're both experienced and reasonably rated, and especially if they play the moves slowly so as to drag out the game.
I've never asked an opponent to resign, although I have pointed out when a position was completely drawn in hopes that they would agree to the draw and move on rather than wasting 50 moves walking around in circles.
New scenario:
You are playing a turn based game (like chess.com) with a strong opponent. After a series of unfortunate errors, your opponent points out a forced mate in 6 moves, and asks you to resign. You know that your opponent sees this forced checkmate correctly. Do you think:
a) Your opponent is being unsporstmanlike
b) You ought to resign
If you believe a, I'd really like to know why.
As I see it, asking for a resignation is a violation of FIDE rules 14.(e) and 14.(f) in OTB, although those rules do not apply here. Nevertheless, conditional moves are a long established principle in correspondence play, from which turn-based is derived, and announcements of a mate in x have been part of chess history far back in time.
Refusing to resign has long been considered an insult among strong players, while resigning is generally foolishness among beginners with whom there is no such thing as a "won game" prior to checkmate.
Those who drag out lost games cast disrepute on their opponent; those that ask for a resignation, cast disrepute on the game.
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=C06
14. The conduct of the players
(a) Once a player has formally accepted an invitation, he must play except in cases of force majeure, such as illness or incapacity. Acceptance of another invitation is not considered to be a valid reason for withdrawal.
(b) In his reply a player may, if he wishes, mention pre-existing medical conditions such as diabetes and special dietary requirements.
(c) All the participants should be dressed in a suitable manner.
(d) A player who does not wish to continue a game and leaves without resigning or notifying the arbiter is discourteous. He may be penalised, at the discretion of the CA, for poor sportsmanship.
(e) A player may speak only as permitted in the Laws of Chess and Tournament Regulations.
(f) All complaints concerning the behaviour of players or captains must be made to the arbiter. A player is not permitted to complain directly to his opponent.
Not all CC permits engines, although at the strongest levels in international competition--the ICCF, for example--, they have given up the effort to prevent it. The USCF, IEGC, and IECC still ban engine use.
Everyone own guns in my part of the world, including my mother, and she shoots well, too!
I would take the mate in 6 challenge and try to find a way out. then I would respond back with something equally rude.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.