...

Hashed like non-other.

redearth329 wrote:

Hmmm, I was just reading over article 10 of the FIDE 'laws of chess,' and I couldn't for the life of me find the rule stating that someone must resign when down in material. Maybe someone can tell me where this rule is to be found?

It's not a rule per se.  Just like there isn't a rule that forces you to respond to your opponent's 'hello'.  Consider it common courtesy. 

I personally don't tell my opponent to resign when they are clearly losing - it's their right to prolong the inevitable.  But they sure better not expect me to play them again - I don't like wasting my time for no reason.

Here's more on the proper chess etiquette:

"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."

(link for the above is: http://www.ksca.us/FAQ/Quick_Guide.pdf"

I don't understand the threads on this topic that begin with a player being offended or accusing his opponent of being ridiculous for not resigning.  My first question would be have you communicated with your opponent and asked why he/she continues to play?  If not, how can you call him/her ridiculous?  If you have and they are being stubborn, well, deal with it by beating them as quickly as you can. If doing so frustrates you or you don't have the patience, then either find another game to play or quit complaining about the rules of a game you choose to play.

I actually have had more situations (and granted, I'm fairly new here) in which my opponent resigned way too early.  I just logged on and found I won a game by resignation, and I can't for the life of me figure out why my opponent quit.  I guess he gave me too much credit and he should have stuck with the game and tried to pressure me into making a mistake.  I am disappointed the game is over so quickly because I lose out on a learning opportunity.

Loomis wrote:

I just read over the United States penal code and couldn't for the life of me find the rule stating that someone is not to be a jerk. Maybe someone can tell me where this law is to be found?

If it's not a law that one shouldn't be a jerk, then there is no legitimate reason to expect people not to act like jerks. Thus, anyone who does expect people to treat each other respectfully  and not act like jerks is merely being irrational.

By the way, there is no law against being an idiot or a moron either.

if you equate not resigning to being a jerk then I pity you sir and I hope you grow up.  Games are games and will always be taken too seriously by some :(  How unfortunate.

Sorry Olimar, you've missed the point.

The point is that just because something is not strictly against the rules doesn't mean that it's the right way to act.

I never said that I equate not resigning with being a jerk. I simply gave a more extreme example of redearth's logic. The point is that the logic fails because there are absurd cases. This is a pretty standard argument.

Olimar wrote:

Loomis wrote:

I just read over the United States penal code and couldn't for the life of me find the rule stating that someone is not to be a jerk. Maybe someone can tell me where this law is to be found?

If it's not a law that one shouldn't be a jerk, then there is no legitimate reason to expect people not to act like jerks. Thus, anyone who does expect people to treat each other respectfully  and not act like jerks is merely being irrational.

By the way, there is no law against being an idiot or a moron either.

if you equate not resigning to being a jerk then I pity you sir and I hope you grow up.  Games are games and will always be taken too seriously by some :(  How unfortunate.

I actually agree with Loomis - he makes a great point.  Just because something is not a law, doesn't mean it isn't right.  Like I said in the previous post - there is no rule about replying to your opponent's 'hello' - but in my eyes you are a jerk if you don't.  And I 'pity' those who don't see it that way.

clearly his logic fails... I wasnt supporting it.  But you certainly implied that not resigning would be the same as being a jerk...  But we can play lawyer games about what was actually "said" or not.  Regardless we can agree to disagree and that is that.  However, I believe people who are adament about people reisgning take this game way to seriously.  Talk about being a jerk. (lol)

eternal21 wrote:

"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."

(link for the above is: http://www.ksca.us/FAQ/Quick_Guide.pdf"

Interesting.

The thing is, I'm not certain that I could "beat even a master" if I were up a piece and a couple pawns. In fact, the only way I'd be "certain" I could "beat even a master" is in clear-cut endings like a winning K+P vs K ending or a K+R vs K ending, for example. Or perhaps situations where I'm up a rediculous amount like ahead by queen, 2 rooks, bishop, knight, and several pawns.

Note: the key word here is "certain".

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

The thing is, I'm not certain that I could "beat even a master" if I were up a piece and a couple pawns.

In that case you should keep playing.

eternal21 wrote:

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

The thing is, I'm not certain that I could "beat even a master" if I were up a piece and a couple pawns.

In that case you should keep playing.

But then people would make forum threads about me "refusing to resign" in a clearly lost position

Olimar wrote:

 I believe people who are adament about people reisgning take this game way to seriously.  Talk about being a jerk. (lol)

We can almost agree here. I have definitely seen a lot of forum posts where people lament their opponent not resigning and they come across as pompous and arrogant to me. And anyone who flat out tells their opponent to resign is a bit over the top.

But, I did  not in my post imply that not resigning was the same as being a jerk. I simply gave an example of his argument applied to being a jerk instead of applied to resigning. This example illustrates the fallacy of the logic, but it does not imply that being a jerk is the same as not resigning. This is a type of argument called "reductio ad absurdum". Assuming redearth's logic was correct, I gave an absurd result, thereby showing the logic to be absurd.

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

eternal21 wrote:

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

The thing is, I'm not certain that I could "beat even a master" if I were up a piece and a couple pawns.

In that case you should keep playing.

But then people would make forum threads about me "refusing to resign" in a clearly lost position

In that case there are two possibilities:

1. It's not a clearly lost position.

2. You are not skilled enough to see it as a clearly lost position.

Regardless of which option it is - you are not breaking the etiquette by continuing the game, until either of the choices no longer holds true.

I personally resign when I'm 5 points down, with no compensation in tempo, against an opponent of equal rating or better.   The only way to win that type of game, is by your opponent blundering terribly.  That doesn't happen often enough with higher rated players, to warrant me wasting my time.

eternal21 wrote:

In that case there are two possibilities:

1. It's not a clearly lost position.

2. You are not skilled enough to see it as a clearly lost position.

Regardless of which option it is - you are not breaking the etiquette by continuing the game, until either of the choices no longer holds true.

I find this discussion somewhat amusing. Nevertheless:

1. I think it is a clearly lost position. By that I mean, with proper play from both sides the side which is down 5 points worth of material will lose (except in certain cases, like where one side has made a sacrifice, a pawn is about to be promoted, etc., etc.)

2. I see it as a clearly lost position, objectively. I simply believe that a master could beat me at rook-odds - meaning that being down a rook shouldn't be enough to convince me to resign!

Well, I'm a player like this. I've played in many games where I was down a rook or more and came out with a stalemate or a win due to an oversight on my opponent's behalf. People like this want to keep fighting and hope that you make an error ;). Just keep playing and win the game.

heh loomis i would never agree with the other guy's logic.  it was soooooooooo bad :(

Ranigad wrote:

Well, I'm a player like this. I've played in many games where I was down a rook or more and came out with a stalemate or a win due to an oversight on my opponent's behalf. People like this want to keep fighting and hope that you make an error ;). Just keep playing and win the game.

But then, you qualify as a beginner (at least looking at your rating).  In your rating range blunders happen quite often, and the rule states you are encouraged to play all the way to check mate.

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

eternal21 wrote:

In that case there are two possibilities:

1. It's not a clearly lost position.

2. You are not skilled enough to see it as a clearly lost position.

Regardless of which option it is - you are not breaking the etiquette by continuing the game, until either of the choices no longer holds true.

I find this discussion somewhat amusing. Nevertheless:

1. I think it is a clearly lost position. By that I mean, with proper play from both sides the side which is down 5 points worth of material will lose (except in certain cases, like where one side has made a sacrifice, a pawn is about to be promoted, etc., etc.)

2. I see it as a clearly lost position, objectively. I simply believe that a master could beat me at rook-odds - meaning that being down a rook shouldn't be enough to convince me to resign!

I never said you should resign at rook-odds.  I wouldn't blame anyone for not resigning when they are 'only' a rook down.  If I dropped a rook - I'd immediately resign, but that's just my personal philosophy.  In that case, I could only win by my opponent blundering, and in the unlikely event that he actually does - I wouldn't get much satisfaction out of the win.  I enjoy winning by out-playing my opponent, not by him making a dumb mistake.

Their choice. Just win the game, and use conditional moves if you really can't face waiting on them. I enjoy kicking a poor defenceless king around the board. It makes me feel like a big man.

I think something more annoying is when your opponent offers multiple draws when he is down a rediculous amount.