Resignation Etiquette???

@ ponz

I told you he was going to find a way out once you cornered him. Elubas laughed when i brought this up the 1st of 2 times. It is like chess. He sets up a trap .... something you can attack in debate. But he is prepared for it. So one will be surprised when has a response in waiting. He sets it up over and over again. I have to say he is a genius. Then his plan B attack a weakness in your point of view. Now he can go on forever.

I am sure he does this for a living!

I just want to see how he applies this method of debate to the toughest question in the world!

When a woman ask if she is fat. How does he use it to respond?

I realized this was a possibility and so I deleted my comment.  I'm not getting into these waters LOL.

We men (yes! you and me and the rest of our fellow spartans) should and never say "Yes i think you are". coz the next minute would be Pfffffffft.(just my opinion)

As Charlie would say When a woman ask you a tough question respond back with a question? lol Who told you that you look fat? Not sure how good that example works but you get the point. That is etiquette and resigning not to give a define response which will be used against you sooner or later.

@ TravisWilliams3 Good job, congrats.

Only saying this as you proved your point and Elubas is not here to shoot it down with twisted point of view. lol. He is most likely sleep. You alone have out smarted the great debate master Elubas. By the time he sees this several people will have read it and posted comments also.

First try also. Just have to say run and have a good day.

Are you sure you're not just saying he beat me because he agrees with you?

Well, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer -- I have an opinion, others have different ones. It wouldn't make sense to have one of the opinions objectively correct -- what would be the point? If God suddenly said "murder is ok," would people suddenly start not being upset at a killer? So I will say again that this isn't the type of issue that can have a truly objective correct answer, and you're acting like there is one, royalbishop.

Ponz, it seems you agree that resigning is a personal choice. I am of the opinion that one should respect other people's resignation point as it means different things to different people. You say I do this a lot but I also think we, indeed, shouldn't assign bad motives to people who don't resign such as "he must be playing on because he thinks I'm not good enough to finish off the position." Sometimes people play on with bad motives, but since the truth about their motives is often blurry, I give people the benefit of the doubt.

I value protecting the innocent, and I think it's ok if I end up giving a few jerks the benefit of the doubt if it means lowering the chances of judging an innocent person for having intentions they didn't have.

Regarding chess tournaments, I think it should be understood that finishing time varies. Sometimes everyone will finish at the same time, and if so, great; other times there will be more of a spread in how long the games take, and I don't think that should be surprising. I respect the player's want to be as sure as possible he will lose more than being able to leave the building with my money quickly. There are some extreme cases where I may feel differently, but this is my general sentiment.

Royalbishop, if I play on a game against you, I ensure you, I am not trying to make your life a living hell. I guess that's all I can do. If you think I am trying to make your life a living hell -- nothing I can do to change your mind. I just have to be satisfied with myself that I do what I believe in.

Regards.

Please don't focus on the hole in the doughnut.  Yawn.

Just resign when appropriate.  Q.E.D.

Elubas, my problem with you is that you use strawman arguments.

To give an example  I showed a way for someone who was winning a pawn endgame against a player who apparently was playing to mate--how to enjoy your time despite the other player playing on when most people would resign.  This was a positive thing.

However you decided that I was telling people to resign in lost pawn endgames or that I was somehow upset about people not resigning in general.  And then you argued against telling people to resign and then you argued against being upset with a player who plays out such a pawn end game and neither of these things were my position at all. In fact my position was just about opposite of what you were assigning to me and then arguing about.

Later, I was giving examplse of how some of my opponents resigned in a very nice way.  This was also positive.

Then you started arguing as if I thought that people who do not resign in this very nice way were showing bad sportsmanship!  Again you were using a strawman argument by arguing against something that I never said or even implied.

You seem to take good motives and twist them into something not said or written or intended and then argue against.

There are more examples of this.

Newly armed with the wikipedia definition of straw man argument, I can now correctly parse the entire previous post. Woo hoo.

lol.

Ponz, I don't claim you think that not resigning early is bad sportsmanship; but I do claim that you say that playing until mate can be. I could probably find a quote somewhere if you want me to.

In general I still tend to think that claiming a resignation to be nice is like saying it's nice to hang a piece because it gives the opponent a good position. In either case it is helping the opponent achieve a win, or do so more easily or with more convenience. I of course get that resigning can be a way of admitting the position is lost, but at the same time it is possible to think you will lose and still play on because even if you are right about that your result is the same; in other words, playing on doesn't necessarily imply denial.

This is why I separate competition from personal things. I think if you want to show someone how much you respect them or care about them, you should do it outside of competition, because competition in a way puts you in a world that contradicts respect -- when we try to beat our opponent, one could argue that's disrespect because to win hurts them in some very indirect way, but at the same time it's because both sides are trying to beat each other that motivates both players to play quality chess. If neither side wanted to "be mean," then nobody would try and the chess wouldn't be passionate.

Can you see where I am coming from, why I think it's awkward to mix respect with competition in some regards?

Note that things like not staring at the opponent's face, stuff done while playing the game, I still sort of consider it outside of the game. I think when you're playing someone, there is a world inside the board -- your thoughts of how to play a move that will win you the game -- and still a world outside -- if he drops his pen or something I will suddenly go back into the real world and pick it up for him, just like any real-life situation.

Of course, you probably agree with my general point but think that playing on till mate "takes this to too far of an extreme." I on the other hand can not get rid of the strangeness in my head that I get from mixing competition and respect -- I think it is just such an odd way of showing respect. I mean, respect? Let's think about a chess tournament -- we want to take money from everybody! When we're against a higher rated player, come on, let's face it, we want a big juicy scalp, and that's what we're thinking about for the whole game; and we want to tell all of our friends about it if we do win . Surely we are somewhat selfish with our wins!

So, ok, resigning supposedly is our way of showing respect, and yet we're doing a whole lot of other "indirectly mean" things mentioned in the above paragraph!

Instead of resigning if I can see the mate coming, I put the moves in the "Conditional moves feature" and let them make their mating moves.

I don't have to see them making the moves but they must get pleasure and enjoy making them.

@Ponz111 has this habit of bring to life ideas (and old openings) and shocking the "big dogs" with them.  Much like his use of the CenterCounter in the U.S. CC Championships a while back.

Now he's doing it with the Ponziani opening.

Fitting that he names his Avatar the same as his latest revival opening.  Probably a pun (or play on words) for the F-111 jet fighter. 

Quite a metaphorical contrast, for a man with such empathetic PATIENCE.

Keep up the great work, @Ponz, this site is indebted to you.

From a beginner point of view (and yes, I mean REAL beginner), as someone mentioned, I'm encouraged NOT to resign as they say it's good to try to learn how to deal with difficult situations.  That said, if I know it's absolutely hopeless, especially in a live game, I'll resign so I don't waste my opponent's time.   Many of my opponents KNOW I'm learning and they, too, encourage me to keep going.  I once took about 15 - 20 minutes just trying SO hard to find a way out of a bad situation, then I sent a message to my opponent and said, "I think I'm truly hopeless".   He didn't mind that I had taken so long (knew I was learning) but then agreed that it was a good time to resign so I did.  Then he generously helped me determine where I went wrong.    Of course, not all will do that.  Sometimes I base it on the mood of my opponent if i can interpret it. 

Given the fact I always play 3 mins, I usually avoid resigning if the enemy is quite short on time.

In a lot of positions the enemy won't be able to deliver the mate in time (or will end in a stalemate by mistake), and that saves score, in the exact way many enemies save their score from you, so I do not see why I should give up the chance to do what most do in a competitive game.

Even if you do not play 1 min, you know that victory in a blitz game means moving fast, not just moving right.

If time becomes a constraint, just choose 10-15 mins, but do not complain in a setting where many people play to win.

Yes, it is silly to complain that someone does not resign in a 3 minute game.

Those who would make such a complaint do not really understand that game.

Elubas, I have never asked an opponent to resign.

Now you go off subject to say that I have said that their are some instances when a person does not resign--this is bad sportsmanship.

Of course, it can be bad sportsmanship to play on to mate in certain conditions.  Here is one example:

You are playing correspondence chess where a move for both sides might take a week.  This is  in the Finals of a tournament with heavy cash prizes.  All the other games are finished and prizes cannot be handed out until your game is finished.  Also the organizers cannot wrap up the tournament until your game is finished. You are down to your king vs your opponents king and 3 connected passed pawns.  You take as long a vacation as allowed.  Then you take sick leave if this is possible.  Then since you have accumulated time--you take about 15 days for each move and then you play to mate.  This is an example when playing to mate is bad sportsmanship.  

So, Elubas if you want to argue the other way, be my guest.

Elubas, you just do not "get it" about the times when someone gave me a very nice resignation.  It certainly was not the same as saying it is nice to hang a pieces as it gives your opponent a nice position.  Almost always when someone resigns it is because they think they are already lost. So your anology that a nice resignation is the same as delibertly tossing a piece so your opponent can have a nice position makes no sense at all.

Resigning is not helping an opponent achieve a win--resigning is an acknowledgement that your opponent has already acheived a win. 

Playing on rather than resigning has nothing to do with the subject of resigning nicely.  Resigning in a very nice way is a way to give honor and compliments to your opponent.