Resignation Etiquette???

When losing, I like to pick up the King and hurl it across the room

Elabus  I certainly disagree with your statement "that competition in a way puts you in a world that contradicts respect"

Elabus, maybe in your personal world competition contradicts respect but that is your world not mine and not the world of the players who gave me very nice resignations. I played a game today with a friend and there was a game I lost and I complimented my opponent. Also games I won and he complimented me.  And while we were playing we often complimented on a good move.  In my world, I respect my opponents before, during , and after the game.   Why do you [again] put bad motives on me and bad motives on my opponents when they give a very nice resignation?

Elubas, you certainly have made your point that you cannot fathom a person giving respect by a very nice resignation. 

And trying very hard to win has absolutely nothing to do with showing respect when you do lose. 

And showing respect in a very nice way in your resignation does not hurt anyone else at all. 

I can hardly believe your habit of taking a very nice concept or happening and trying to make it something very unnice!  You seem to do this almost constantly...

  Now you have really gone out of your mind. " competition "  Competition means we are playing for something, more than likely money is involved and may be a team event. What a minute ........ back up.  To be competitive means that both sides are playing at the same level. Means more than likely the game will end in a draw or come down to the End Game with a pawn advantage that will win the game.

When a player is being dominated .....it is not a competition they are getting a whuppin a good old fashion arz kicking. No way out, no way to get a draw even if it was on the board because your opponent sees it. How could they not they are dominating the game, no all of the sudden they get dum, lol. Tilt the king as the will have the option to further humiliate you with methods like get another Queen, 4 Rooks, take all your pieces and etc. The Online option would be post your game in a group or post a link to the game.

Did you say competition, are you joking me? "If neither side wanted to "be mean," then nobody would try and the chess...." Fun, creative, competitive, inexpensive, playable almost at anytime anywhere and etc. Being competitive is also knowing when you lost and not drag it out as your opponent will have a mental edge over you when you next play. With that in mind it would show your opponent strength and not weakness. Also takes way the thought they never checkmated me, which is very big, very big as that is the goal of the game.

When you brought competition to this you talking to the king of competitive. Wrong subject, wrong place, wrong time. Just turn around and act as though you never mentions it.

In a Competition which i can more than  speak for several players. I want to send the message that you should have never showed up regardless of who you are or title. I want you to remember our game for the rest of your life. Every-time you lose you will compare it our game and say when you lose to another it could have been worse. When i have an opponent in lost situation in a competition and they resign. I know they believe they could have played better and will come back with something better and improved. From their view point this is good. From mine grrrrrr.

Now when i first started playing and still do(in face to face games) i resign in lost situations. Take a note of it and move on. Later i take out the old chess board and figure out how to avoid it and how to get out of it if i forget. That is being competive but not competition. I did not want to give my stronger opponent any satisfaction when i first started it was also the way i was taught. Plus the fact that people are watching when you play face to face games no matter where you try to hide they some how find the game.

When i first started i made more friends by just resigning and they taught me things which helped me improve my game. So it is more to gain by resigning that dragging out a hopeless situation. I do not want to here your IF THEN cases  and WHAT and POSSIBLE THIS  cases.

Elubas you know when a situation is lost. Try as you may this is myterritory and will lose even if i am faced with to of you here, hey even it was 3 Elubas i still prove my point. On this it is like you bring a knife to a gun fight. lol

Do not know who taught you this idea on Resigning and where you play. Go to the wrong place and sit down at the table against astronger opponent and drag out a situation it is clear you lost .... I am sure you will never try it again. Just have to warn you much trash talk will proceeded if you repeat this in 2nd game. At that point i suggest you run as it will turn from a friendly game to money coming out. I figure you have never met a Chess Hustler before as your view for resigning may be perfect for them to take your money. By this i mean it shows them you do not know when to cut your loses. Ca Ching, show them the money!

Respect?   R-E-S-P-E-C-T ?

Respect as a player, person, male or female, friend, team mate, nationality ........

Another way he can go on and on. Respect is up to a person and many things or some will determine if they decided to do this. I know am more likely to respond to a persons comments after they resign in a lost situation. Not sure but it makes me think about when i first started playing and other players helped me learn the game.

If you see mate in 4 moves hey more that likely your opponent sees mate in 4 moves. That comes under "Hoping that your opponent does not see your plans" The 2nd most popular way to lose a game.

Respect ...... may get some of when in lost situation by asking for a Rematch during the game. More than likely they will give you one unless they are chicken. Asking for a rematch is good because if they decline then you know you made a blunder due to something you were not aware of in the game. In which case they decline due to it not working twice and they would lose.

Respect?  Showing Resignation Etiquette is the only way a person can not brag after the game without looking like a JA. A smart and classy way to end a lost game. In which case they may show some mercy next game (bad if show to much, lol) and not totally humiliate you in a game.

Respect? When my opponent has only 1 pawn and 1 minor piece and wants to continue against me i have still have several pawns , maybe a 1-2 Rooks and 1-2 minor pieces and still playing. I have to wonder do they have any respect for my game or respect for themselves to just resign. That was an example, had to present the worse case scenario just to prove a point.

@RoyalB, it's about time for the Cliff Notes version of your thoughts.

That is the Cliff Note version. I spared Elubas.

He resigned over this situation on Resign like 2 weeks ago. ??? He starst up. He was so done and several others offered him us as toast on the subject. Then he comes back like it is first time and it never took place.

What is "The Outer Limit" .. "where he controls the horizontal and vertical. No need to adjust your tv set....."  Elbubas the Entertainer is funny. Even him with his NRU - Non Resigners Union gets a laugh out of me. His method of evading the point is genius. But he just touched the wrong subject he can never on here. Never.

Let's do this systematically:

Post 205: "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."

I don't think you made a very convincing distinction here. I already addressed the counterargument that resigning "admits you are lost" in the post you are quoting. I follow that up by saying that you don't have to resign to admit that you are lost.

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

Ponz, you are being metaphorical here. Technically, resigning does help your opponent achieve a win -- for example, it reduces the amount of time needed to be spent on the game before winning it. You may feel in a metaphorical sense that it is giving something your opponent  already has, but technically speaking, you only win if your opponent resigns or you give checkmate. If you have a winning position, it doesn't mean you won the game yet, but it does imply that you, most likely, are about to win. But note how being winning and actually winning are not identical. I apologize that I am not using your metaphorical sense of the idea, but I think an objective use of definitions is a clearer way to go.

Post #207: Yeah, compliments and stuff is what I think respect is all about. But again, saying something like "nice move" doesn't require resigning or anything like that. In fact, it's possible to even compliment your opponent while playing on -- what if I were to tell him, for example, "gosh your technique is so good," as I go on to lose? As I have made the point before, playing on is not necessarily contradictory to both thinking your opponent has good technique and thinking you are going to lose.

Remember when I talked about picking up my opponent's pen when he drops it, and not staring at him? That's how I show respect. I may "kill him" in the virtual world (checkmate!), but anywhere outside, I give him total respect. The fact that I would kill someone in one world and be nice to them in another is why I made the statement that competition (only in this very specific sense I have described) can be contradictory to respect.

"Being competitive is also knowing when you lost and not drag it out as your opponent will have a mental edge over you when you next play."

Just because in a competitive game, some people give up, doesn't mean that giving up is inherent to competition. People give up despite competition, not because of it.

I really want to stress that again, and I won't make the post longer so you focus on this important distinction.

"Just have to warn you much trash talk will proceeded if you repeat this in 2nd game."

You see, I don't base what I do on other's opinions. If a master wants to trash talk me for playing on, he can go ahead. I'm still going to do what I believe in; trash talk isn't a big enough deterrent of that.

Anyway, although I disagree with you, I totally respect your opinion, royalbishop. I want you to know that too.

In a competition you better resign in a lost position. Funny you only took parts of my comment. Any way. It is wise on so many levels. As one your opponent may think you were just tired or surprised by the opening. The thrill of mate is gone and etc. "Giving up" ??? a difference between giving up and resigning. Adding words now. Giving means you had a chance. Resigns well ..... mate was coming.

How did a GM playing enter the playing field. The would just find so lame reason not to play you again if you did not resign with mate in 4 moves. They figure you get the hint. Never think they trash talk .... that would make head lines and make you the better player. For them that is not Etiquette unless they do it to another GM.

Trash talk is not a deterrent you say. Must be talking about online but i was not. As in online you can ignore it by clicking something else or get up. But when face to face with an opponent and other watching it will influence your behavior. Nobody is going to take that kind of verbal lashing long. And it keeps reaching the next level unchecked. NIcknames arise out of nowhere. Players that you would normally beat suddenly are harder to beat. Not worth it all.

Like i said if face to face with a Chess Hustler they going to leave you walking out with dust  in your pocket. Better to resign. I know when to fight it out and know when it is check out time. I have a feeling your going to change your stance on this issue or learn a painful lesson outside Online chess. Hope it is the first.

"Know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run.." pretty sure you heard the lyrics to this song before.  "......count your money when the day is done"

I agree somewhat with Elubas, there was one competition 960 game I was playing and was in a clearly lost position. My opponent kept chatting me to resign, and I eventually did. A few days later he was removed from chess.com (with the cancel mark next to his name). If I had not listened to him and kept playing, I would have won on time.

Thus, you haven't truly lost yet when you lose on the board, there's always a chance that you could still win, so I respect my opponent even when he does not resign immediately. I may try to speed it up by inputting a bunch of conditional moves, but other than that, he can still possibly win.

" you don't have to resign to admit that you are lost " If your lost it makes no sense to continue. Say if your opponent does blunder away the game and Snow turns purple, Turkeys are never again eaten on Thanksgiving Day. What joy will you have from this victory.

Say you win not 1 put several games where you are in a lost position. Hey i will use a common word here " If "  If your rank rises to 2100 with all these wins. Wow your a great player beat a couple 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000 players in a lost situation and they blunder. He buddy how do i learn how to do that? I did not see that in any chess book.    Gotcha!

Say again " If "   If you entered a tournament with GM's also and went undefeated and won. And "If" you beat a couple GM's along the way in posisitions anybody.... and i mean anybody would say you clearly should have lost and won games one after another by blunders. We wonder what will be the headline of the article of the tournament you won. "Elbas shook up the world"  or "Elbas wins tournament scam" .

That seems irrelevant. The goal of the battle is to win using intuition. If you win when you are in a lost position, you've still won. You get rating increases as a bonus for the win. 

Human chess is rarely without luck at the level of most of us on chess.com. How can you say that leaving a queen hanging in the middle game is so much different from blundering a won endgame? Should you not accept the queen because the media will say "royalbishop wins on mistake?". Of course most reasonable people will accept the queen and win the game.

"Just because in a competitive game, some people give up, doesn't mean that giving up is inherent to competition. People give up despite competition, not because of it."

Look, here is what I mean by this: when you are only down, say, a pawn, your competitive instinct is telling you to keep fighting. You probably disagree that this applies to, say, being down two queens, but would you agree that in positions that are only down a pawn or something, positions that have a better chance of being saved, to fight on in those positions is competitive instinct?

To resign when down by an overwhelming amount of material is when you say "Ok, I know about competitive instincts, but in this case it's just not worth playing on."

That's why I say people give up despite competitiveness and not because of it.

"If your lost it makes no sense to continue. Say if your opponent does blunder away the game and Snow turns purple, Turkeys are never again eaten on Thanksgiving Day. What joy will you have from this victory."

How trivial could the position have been if a person ended up blowing it? Trivial to me shouldn't just mean easy; it should mean being able to do it drunk, with your eyes closed, 100% of the time. To say there is no point playing something out and to go on to lose is pretty contradictory -- clearly there were still problems to solve, that weren't solved.

Even king and two rooks vs king has a logical method to solving it -- it's an easy method but it's still a method. If you don't have a logical method and a consistent application of it, you won't win that position. Luckily most of us do, and we generally can succeed with this mate easily.

In any case, I would win that game as I win any: as a result of my opponent's mistakes. Whether I claim that win to be my favorite is up to personal taste.

What was the Fischer story where he commented on a position under analysis something like "These types of position are so easy to win I only see them in my dreams" or something... or maybe it was actually during the game (it was a blitz game)... and he then went on to lose that game

As you say, it can be a very nice position, but it will never win itself.

Not that I resign quite as late as you're often suggesting, but I can appreciate your point.

Well, accumulating points from bad positions is what even the best players do, for example Magnus Carlsen.

Remember that winning a game depends on playing better than the opponent. If I lose a queen, but my opponent blunders mate in 1 after I played on forever, I achieved the goal of the game (checkmate) better than my opponent -- I may have carelessly lost a queen, but he made an even more important mistake.

Points, points and points!

Ok if your in a Team Match, Vote Chess or Tournament great. But when your not and you win the game it feels good for now, take the win. Later on think about it, it is like a thief as player learns more when they lose as they are forced to more likely look over the game. Thus leading to improving. Get too many of those and when things go wrong with your game your not going to know where to start. And we all struggle at some point and time for some unkown reseason.

Legit always taste better. And your opponent was wrong for saying resign in chat. In that case just turn off chat! And we are not sure what you call a lost position in chess960. I have to assume from experience when an opponent says resign or draw a win must be present somehow. 50% of the time that is true in my experience. I have to ask as if a draw was then it was not lost. Was it possible to get a draw in anyway? Maybe that was what he was worried about here. The possibility for draw as slim as it was in game but it was still possible. Go read the rules on a draw, I used to be Draw Master in games ...that is when i first started playing chess.

Yeah, don't be bias by the order of the mistakes.  Just because your opponent blunders first doesn't mean you were garunteed the win, or that your opponent got lucky when you blundered back.  A mistake is a mistake... and actually if you blundered 2nd then you likely bundered in a superior position... i.e. you were under less pressure, so you could argue that your opponent deserved the win more, even if you were winning for 20 moves before hand.

Anyway, the point is not to lest these things bias your judgement.  A loss is a loss, you only lose when you play bad moves.  Go home and study your mistakes.

I've many times in these forums have brought up the fact that I lost a position up a piece against a 1900 player, as maybe a 1600-1700 player myself (ironically, I valued an extra piece higher than I do now; generally the stronger you get the smaller advantages you appreciate, but this was an exception).

He said "sorry," after he beat me, and I hate to say this but at the time I thought to myself "Yeah he better apologize." I really did think I was entitled to a resignation, and thought I had "won the game already" much earlier on when I was up a full piece for nothing.

What I had to understand was that the only way to actually win when you are up a piece is to use that piece to help you force checkmate. Instead, I just played prosaic moves, slowly giving my opponent compensation, thinking that the knight just sitting there would magically mate my opponent. Instead, it was his bishop and extra pawn that outplayed my two knights, as my knights were too far away from his passed pawns.

If that position was really trivial, I would have won it extremely easily. I didn't. Now I feel I have a responsibility to prove any advantage I get -- actually do something with my extra material, and if not, I don't deserve to win after all.

A competive game. That means 2 sides equally talented enganging in a game. "When your down a pawn" .... that is hardly the time to resign. Sure it is chance to lose as many games have be won by a person with only a pawn ahead and that is all the advantage they needed.

The way you are using "competitive instinct"..... just got a flashback to a James Bond movie. I see you being chased by gun men and your at the edge of a cliff and all you have is a bed sheet and want to glide down to a boat about 50 ft out. You hold onto the sheet and simutaneously jump and throw it above your head and .......... competitive instinct sounds like here more like wishful thinking. Really if your down a pawn and in the right hands you could lose as several strategies come into play.

Never did anwser the question: What joy will you have from this victory?

You mentioned a King and 2 Rooks vs King.  ???? Game over. Now that would be the ultimate jerk to continue that game. Face to face i think most would pick the corner we want to mate him, not the corner he wants. Yeah a guy tried running from me in this situation. That ended quickly. He learned to resign quick. We then went on to play several games for many days. He never won but we enjoyed the games. He improved which made me improve also.

How could a person blow a game? If your use to winning that way then you know how to put your opponent in a position where a chance is they may blow it. It is called creating complications such as sacraficing almost any piece, planning crazy unexpected checks, moving your king to opponents side of the board( lol, love this one) and etc