12377 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
purcellneil, some of the cases are really extreme. For example, the winning side has several pawns that can't be stopped from queening. I think a 1600+ player can see the consequences of that.
I met a player at a tournament once who was very proud of the fact that he had never in his life resigned a game of chess. He simply did not resign and that was that, no matter what was happening on the board. A bit naive if you ask me.
I can understand not resigning if you don't "get it" and see that your position is lost. Certainly I would play on for longer in most positions than a grandmaster would, simply because I'm not clever enough to work out it's over. But in the example cited at the start of this forum, the losing player saw that it was mate in 2. If you can see that and you don't resign, what you're saying is "You've clearly outplayed me so far, but I don't think you're good enough to spot the simple mate that I can see." That's just rude. The same goes for playing on with king against king and rook, or king and queen, etc, which a lot of players on this site advocate doing in the hope of a stalemate.
Generally if you are a weaker player, you learn more from playing more games with stronger players. If a weaker player does not resign a game against me where it is completely and totally over, I will not grant a rematch. So in the end, you only hurt yourself when claiming you are "playing on to learn". If you want to study tactics, grab a tactics book and study tactics on your own time. I realize that everyone has the right to play on til the cows come home, but realize your opponents time is valuable too. Playing at a pace of a couple moves a day when you are down two pieces and a bunch of pawns in an endgame is spending your opponents valuable time he could be spending playing more interesting games for a very dubious amount of personal gain. It's simply rude-- Though it is your right to keep playing.
I think asking someone directly to resign is a little rude-- But delivered with a little tact it is fine. For example, a polite "Are you ready for our next game yet?" is to the point and politely offers another game. If they still don't resign, toss em on your noplay list and forget about it, it's just a game.
"its not over till its over"
i dont know who said that but its good advice.
play it out if you want, i would never hold that against an opponent.
I'll reply after I'm done beatin' old Trigger.
I'm never gonna hold it against him as a person, but I'm definitely going to choose very carefully who I choose to spend time with. Simply put, learning when to resign is an important measure of your understanding and development as a chess player. I don't hold it against players who don't know when to resign, but I have no desire to play with them in the future.
I think not resigning in a lost position is rude, but in blitz its all right=D
An interesting game cited in an earlier discussion ...
I would have to agree with alot of you on this subject.Your opponent should know when enough is enough ,Especially after he has gained some experience over the board.Yes it maybe rude to waste your opponents time by playing out a hopeless position,But I seem to recall that its "My move" and "My time" also.So all in all even when your loosing you can still choose to lose anyway you want,Mate,Resign,or on time either way its a lose.Besides "Respect" you never show your opponent any respect,because once you show him respect you lose.A win is a win no matter how its recieved so quit complaining.Also did Leonidis show Zerxies any on the battlefield,So in war and in a game of war your trying to conquer your opponent wheres' the respect in that trying to destroy each other.Leonidis fought to the very bitter end "DEATH" he may have been there by Spartan Law but he was there he was Warrior King.I show more respect to an opponent who is willing to fight with all the tenacity of tiger backed into a corner becuase just maybe he'll give the fight you were looking for all along.So brave little warrior fight on.15 thousand Spartan warriors commanded by 30 thousand free Greeks.300 took on thousands,should they have resinged?
If you have a mate in two, be happy about it, play it, and quit whining. If 4 moves is a drag, how can you possibly play a whole game?
But then I'm used to playing chessmaster on the PC which never resigns, always drags games out, and has bored me into blundering more than once.
Chess.com is like many other internet sites where people can chat and post: some people use the relative anonymity to vent some personal negativity. This "rude to not resign" or "rude to ask someone to resign" thread should probably be in the FAQ by now.
Most of the responses to your post have rightly pointed out that your opponent's method of asking you to resign was thoroughly rude. It is also true that playing a completely lost position is considered rude by many, though not all. PawnFork's post (#23 on this thread) seemed a reasonable compromise. The game is not completely lost to you unless you yourself see exactly how you are going to be checkmated. It is reasonable for an experienced player to explain some chess culture to a beginner, but only in a completely civil, friendly, and welcoming way. I would recommend:
"Hey Steve, I've been enjoying this game. I believe I have a forcing line with 24...Nf6 25.Kf8 Qa8 26.Kg7 Ne6. Note that my g pawn protects my f6 Knight. I thought you might be a beginner, because in most chess communities it is considered etiquette to resign once the mate is inevitable - so I thought I'd mention it. It doesn't put me out to finish the game, but I thought I'd fill you in on some chess culture. One reason for the etiquette of resigning is in a situation where the game is the last one in a group for a tournament, and the winners of all the other groups are waiting for this game to end so that the next round of the tournament can begin. But it's your call; I'm happy to finish this with you."
I hope that helps. About 95% of the time we have this thread, it's because the dude who wants someone else to resign is just a crank - but it is true that resignation is considered polite for completely lost situations. But do wait until its completely lost. Many people are so used to resigning or having their opponents resign that they haven't practiced their endgame. The golf analogy was great: if everyone gave up after one of Tiger Woods' incredible drives, no one would ever know if he could putt well enough to close the deal! Endgames are an exciting part of the game. Openings are all about memorization, but endgames are very personal conflicts. When you have that many hours or days invested in a game; the anxiety, pressure, excitement, and emotional investment really picks up.
I completely agreed with this post.
As a Local TD for USCF, I see chat that specifically addresses the game the same as talking to one's opponent over the board. It is both poor etiquette and a violation of the rules. The reason this rule is in place for OTB games is two-fold: 1) to limit talk in the tournament room and 2) to prohibit influencing the game.
Remember, the game is played on the chessboard. I would never make such a suggestion unless my opponent was clearly dragging the game out (taking days to make a move when all his/her other moves were done in a matter of hours) And even then, my chat would first be to inquire as to whether he was still playing the game (due to the long delay).
u don't have to resign...I always try 4 a stalemate...and it helps ur endgame to finish:)
Not resigning when the game is lost is fine with me so long as the game continues at the same pace as before.
Slowing down to play on the nose of the time control is annoying - but not really wasting my time either so not a big problem.
Only really unacceptable behaviour: losing in a live game with 8 minutes on the clock and just sitting there and just letting the time run out instead of playing out the game or resigning
This is why you should not resign:
I'm playing you now, two moves from mate. Take as long as you like ;)
My funniest game
by AKShiva a few minutes ago
Tactics coming from the Scandinavian Defense (B01)
by SocialPanda a few minutes ago
Chess rating system
by petrikeckman a few minutes ago
10/10/2015 - Sometimes It Works
by opettet-743 2 minutes ago
Why the opponent is winning immediately when I am in advantageous position
by Lagomorph 4 minutes ago
10/9/2015 - In From Behind
by Acjdohaqatar 8 minutes ago
Millionaire Chess 2!!
by Darth_Algar 12 minutes ago
Podium Prediction Plus (PPP) - "World Rapid/Blitz Chess Champs 2015"
by LesuhAn 18 minutes ago
How to deal with bishops sacs and is g5 playable?
by uscftigerprowl 21 minutes ago
(1700+) I found incredible move after huge blunder.
by Cqrissie 34 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!