Resignation Etiquette???

I have a situation now that I'll bet you haven't experienced. I got into a losing position with my 1700+ rated opponent, and I wrote to him that I could probably resign now without loss of sleep, but that I'd probably play on for a few more moves to see if he saw what I saw.

Now HE has slowed down and is down to 39 hours in a 3 day per move game. Yes, that's not agonizingly slow, but he's got the win in the bag. Go figure.

Nothing like reviving a topic that died 11 months ago.

I am a very weak player, but particularly in the throes of the endgame. That being said, when I find myself in an untenable position, I play it out to the bitter end for two reasons: 1) I think both players can benefit from the experience of different variations. 2) I just enjoy the game. One or two people have thanked me for playing it out. No one's said, "why don't you just quit?" Nor would I think of suggesting that to someone else. What I do find frustrating, though, is when an opponent loses a queen early and resigns, when I literally have no idea what the end might look like. I realize there are some people who can look 16 moves ahead and state with 100 percent certainty at all times when checkmate is inevitable, but please, give the rest of us a chance to learn something once in a while. Even if it's just learning how to blow the rare times we get a big lead.

It was interesting when I read a post that said something like "playing on is probably rude, but maybe they can be excused because they don't know the etiquette."

What's disturbing is that what is good sportsmanship is completely, utterly, relative. Some people will have some philosophy of how their time shouldn't be wasted and thus that people should resign; others may have their own philosophy that they don't play on to waste their opponent's time, but instead want to be as sure that they are going to lose as absolutely possible.

I would guess what is meant by "knows the etiquette" is really referring to something like "knows what the majority of people's opinion is on when/if a person ought to a resign and is mean if they don't."

But just because a certain amount of people may have a certain view on it shouldn't mean that those who look at it differently should just capitulate to the majority.

Decide for yourself how resignation relates to sportsmanship. You can get some ideas and arguments in this thread, but you have to pick the one that makes the most sense to you, not the one that everybody believes.

While there is no requirement to resign any position , its common courtesy and accepted practice in tournament play to resign a hopelessly lost position . Sometimes kids will play until checkmate , no matter what  however .  As for Dr Tarrasch he did resign his fair share of games and I doubt you can find even one that he actually played until he was mated ... 

I agree with what you say, but the quote is Tartakover, not Tarrasch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savielly_Tartakower

I've met players who will play on in a hopeless position because they feel that it would be rude to resign and deprive their opponent of the satisfaction of delivering checkmate.

I'll resign fairly fast if I'm in a truly losing position and I don't feel I can learn from it anymore. If I believe I have a chance to win, I fight till I no longer think so.

Besides that, I'll never push for my opponent to resign, no matter how poor the state of his pieces. Besides, rather than getting annoyed at someone who isn't resigning, why not cherish your winning position? Even for a couple of days or weeks if it's in online chess.

Etiquette or not, I always play till the end. You'd be surprised how many opponents think they have the match won, but one blunder on their behalf, and you're right back in it. I see so many people resign the moment they lose their queen, and I feel that it's a cowardly way out. You can still win without your queen. Also, a lot of opponents are not good with time management, so sometimes it's advantageous to play till the end.

In another game I play many players actually consider resigning poor etiquette. That attitude seems to be weakening though.

Or just generalize it a bit more and it seems everyone agrees anyway.

I resign when:

1. I believe my position is lost
2. I believe my opponent knows it's lost and,
3. I believe my opponent can convert it without difficulty

Your problem is that the whole point of playing is to learn and improve.  You don't learn and improve by getting lucky on your opponent's blunder when you're getting your @$$ beat.  That just lets you "win".

MSteen, why do you suspose he did what he did?

I sometimes pull off a stalemate against an opponent who doenst know their endgames so well... and heck... it's good practice for them, especially if they always have people resign. at lower ratings at least.

I do not see the point to play to the end.  You do not learn much doing that.

If a miracle happened and you win--what do you have?  You have a lucky win that you did not deserve and you probably have wasted another human beings' time.

MSteen if you try and put yourself in your opponent's shoes you might be able to figure out what your opponent was doing and why.

pcfilho your success was that your opponent let you win in a resignable position?  Is this more important than learning how to play chess well?

[it may be--just asking]

The whole reason I play till the end is to learn and improve. There's a lot to learn from an opponents blunder. For one, it teaches you what not to do. Bottom line is this; if you're in a losing position, the burden is on your opponent to close the deal. If he's competent, it should be no problem. If not, there's no shame in taking advantage of his mistake. Maybe it will teach him something. Resigning never gives you the opportunity to win, no matter how much of an underdog you are.

For those who say that one reason they do not resign in very obvious terrible losing positions is that they learn by watching the technique to win the game and/or they learn sometimes what not to do.

If you are above the novice level what you will learn from not resigning a completely lost game will be much smaller than what you would learn just by starting another game. If you are rated 500 - 800 then you will learn something by not resigning. But the higher you get in your chess rating and chess knowledge--the less sense it makes not to resign.

Certainly, anyone with a rating of 1200 will learn very little by not resigning and what they might learn would be far smaller than what they would learn by resigning and doing something else in chess.

My [grandmaster] teacher told me, regarding dropping a piece in a more-or-less equal position: "just resign. The types of chess thoughts you have in these types of positions are counter-productive to your chess development. Resign and rest up for the next game."

ozzie. your grandmaster teacher was right!