Bad Sportsmanship

Resignation is part of chess. I'll resign as soon as I feel there are no chances. It's better to move on than play a lost game.

gothom chess has a vid about resigning he says never do it you can still win!

Why do you care? You still win.

I played this guy once, he put his queen in a position where it could be taken. I didn't see it because I was playing outside and it was  really sunny; and I think I attacked his queen or something. Then he moves it again to another spot where it could be taken. I didn't see it again. Then he resigns before I see that his queen can be taken. So I win. 

Like if I'm playing Magnus and he resigns,  I'm gonna go around telling people I'm better than the world champion. So what's the problem? I wish more people would resign, then I wouldn't have to think anymore. 

he has a point

this is a weird forum

I agree with Martin_Stahl. It´s part of the game. If you see the games of the "Big Fishes" nearly never they play till the end. I remember that I read that Donald Byrne asked the "collegues" who are gathering around the board if he shall let the boy (Bobby Fischer) finish him with checkmate after this incredible good game. It was meant as an honor for the young bobby.

But LyingRobin sais the truth When I played shorter time controls I had ofthe the situation that my opponent resigned after his own move and only then I saw, that I had the possibility to win the game. It is, in my opinion, a bit stupid to do so. When I make a plunder I wait, maybe my opponent overlookes it.

But in fact even in the games of the professional players you can see that people resign straight after their own moves. But mostly not of a plunder but because their situation is so bad, that it is not worth to waste more time. But still I don´t understand it.

I believe there is something known as "spite checks". Do they relate, I think they do.

What has it to do with the question here?

There are people that say not resigning is bad sportsmanship, and then there are people that say resigning too early is bad sportsmanship.

Two sides of the same dang coin, because they’re both wrong.

A question of sportsmanship and game play. I am asking if there is a relation, sorry if you can't see the relationship ;-D

Ok, for me it´s not so relevant in the question discussed here. But if you are interested in this topic, make a new thread. It would be, at least, a new topic. Did not see that is discussed here in the forum up to now.

WHATS HAPINGEING

Hi all... I've started playing chess a couple of months ago, when I joined chess.com.

I'm really enjoying playing daily tournaments, and got a question related to this topic:

When I see I dan't have any mathematical change to go to the next round of a tournament, is it right or wrong to abandon the tournament?

On one side, I save any other's players time, and gives them some extra points.
On the other side, I miss (and force the others to miss) another chance of improving and measure against each other.

Is there a recomended behavior on this situation? A good practice?

It's equal parts sportsmanship and etiquette..

I also play regurlarly daily tournaments and I would be really dissapointed if someone who is behind with no chances would abandon. I didn't do it when I was at this point. I think, you joined the tournament and you should play it till your last game is finished.

If you do not wish to play the rest of the tournament you should resign your remaining games immediately rather than time out.  Ultimately, you should continue to play them out as you normally would to help improve your game.

I'm on that side too... but I just wondered if the other player would be thinking "come on man... you are already out of the tournament, let us keep going!"

From previous comments I understand that should not be the case, so I'll keep playing as many matches as I can, trying to improve, of course. 

Resign whenever you want to. I would rather set em up and let's play again.