Resignation Etiquette???

-1 pt each move  for slowing it down. Or -5pts  each game this is done

Of course I'm making the assumption (that is, I'm bringing up a hypothetical situation as a basis for reasoning) -- it makes sense in this case. I'm using that assumption to come to the conclusion that the GM feels that playing on a piece down would involve playing for traps and such.

We are not arguing "if he will resign or not" -- clearly the answer is "he will resign." Our question is instead "Does the grandmaster think that playing on down a piece would involve using lots of traps and hope chess?" I disagree with that by saying you can play on down a piece without necessarily playing hope chess.

For the second question, there is nothing wrong with making the assumption I did. It's not actually a true assumption, but by applying it to a different reality we are able to make a conclusion about the second question (not the first). That's not a straw man. I am not making the second question as a means of "dodging" the first. I'm making the second one because we simply don't care what the answer to the first one is (which is that he would resign), so there's no use talking about it.

ponz, I am not stating that the grandmaster's position is to not resign. His position regarding that particular thing is not relevant to what I'm saying.

Put on the dancing music.

The life of the party has arrived and those go till the break of dawn. Just wondering how are things going with the NRU - Non Resigners Union? I have  applied for a position and have no recieved an word on it. Willing to bring all my friends and really get the ball rolling.

By the way, I'm curious, why did you create the NRU if you're not even a member of it, royalbishop?

Ponz, an easier way to think about it is to consider that the GM is threatened with death if he resigns a position instead of playing it out. We want to know, in that situation, how would he play if he was in that lost position? And because he says it would be counter-productive to chess ability to play on, we can assert that he would play in some way that would be counter-productive to his chess.

This must be the Soviet Chess Federation that you're talking about...

Nice try, not.

We all know that you believe that a Non Resigner should not resign under any conditions. You came up with 1,ooo cases which were shot down by various players here. hahaha

Tequila, has it gotten to this. Now taking us into the fantasy world.

Man overboard!

You seem to think that bringing up fantasy situations can't allow you to make real conclusions, but you're wrong. In fact, conclusions are readily made by means of the hypothetical.

Even as chess players we do this! When thinking about what move to play, we consider what would happen if we were to play a certain move. Note that to come to a conclusion about that move does not require that we actually play that move.

We can use the GM's opinion in the "first question" to determine what he would do in the hypothetical situation that I gave, with no dependence on whether that situation ever actually takes place or not.

Elubas, If you think that is not the grandmasters position why use his position in the first place?  

There is absolutely no basis for your assumption that the grandmaster has made an assumption that if you do play on after dropping a piece that it would have to be in the swindle mode. The grandmaster does not want his students to play on if they dropped a piece. I would give the same advice as the grandmaster--that is if you drop a piece in anotherwise even position--just to resign. This does not mean that I think if a player does not take my advice and does play on that the player should then use the swindle mode.  Actually, I would question if such a player really wanted to learn how to play chess better if he could not or would not follow advice.

Regarding the question "Does the grandmaster think that playing on down a piece would involve lots of traps and hope chess" The answer is we do not know. If I were the grandmaster--I would not care what tactics my player used to continue on in a game--what I would care about is that my student is not following my advice.

If you want to make an assumption about what some grandmaster may or may not do--state you are making an assumption of what that grandmaster may or may not do.

I remember when I was giving ways to play out a chess game more to your enjoyment in the situation when your opponent was in a totally lost pawn game and you interpeted that as meaning that I would be upset because my opponent would not resign, and in fact I was showing a way so as to not get upset.

Then, later when I gave some very good examples of how my opponents in the past have resigned--you interpreted that as I was saying that my opponents must resign in a certain way and if they did not that meant they were not sportsmanlike.

Assuming a person believes a certain thing and then knocking down that belief when you do not really know if the person believes that thing or not-is called using a strawman.

This real. It appears a guy he plays for $50 a game read his post. So when he played not to resign in a lost game the guy  pulled out  his Equalizer to his Non Resigning tactic.

"Elubas, If you think that is not the grandmasters position why use his position in the first place?"

Oh boy. You still seem to think it is important that the assumption that is made is actually true. As I said, you can use a hypothetical situation to make certain real conclusions.

"Regarding the question "Does the grandmaster think that playing on down a piece would involve lots of traps and hope chess" The answer is we do not know."

If we use ozzie's interpretation, we absolutely know. The only way the answer could be "no" was if ozzie's interpretation of what the GM meant was false (I think his post was a few pages back). Read ozzie's post. He said, citing his teacher, that "when you're just lost, you play desperate chess."  If he really thought that you don't play desperate chess, then he wouldn't have said that you do play desperate chess.

I have no idea of how you can disagree with that.

"Assuming a person believes a certain thing and then knocking down that belief when you do not really know if the person believes that thing or not-is called using a strawman."

lol, ponz -- we are not talking about whether or not I agree with his thesis (I have an opinion about that but that's not the point); what we seem to be arguing about is, what his thesis actually is! I'm not knocking down a belief here! I'm saying "he believes this," and you apparently don't agree with what I claimed he believed.

@ponz Have fun.

Several of us have already been through this with Elubas. Have to give him credit as he can easily go all night doing this and not break a sweat. And just when you think you have him in the corner..... he like a ninja and just like that he behind you with some new material. Giving you the heads up.

It's true, I do find this stuff pretty fun. Nonetheless royalbishop, your post doesn't disprove my points.

"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."

This was the GM quote. What do we think his thesis is?

I say it includes the following: you have bad thoughts when you play on down a piece, the kind of thoughts that develop bad habits (this would include hope chess) and thus it makes your chess worse (counter-productive).

Do you think there is doubt that this is part of his thesis?

That thesis above is what I had been responding to by saying that you don't necessarily develop bad habits when playing on down a piece.

Elubas, sorry but "desperate chess" does not have to be the same as "swindle chess"  You are making assumptions again which very much may not be true.

To give an example I was recently in a game where our opponent was totally lost and playing on.  Our opponent was NOT playing "swindle chess"   they were NOT laying traps or trying to swindle --they played on because they hoped we would or might over step the time limits. They also played on out of a certain stubborness.

I am playing in a vote chess game now where early in the opening our opponent is down a clear piece--we do not know why our opponent is playing on.  But we just try and find the best moves possible with no assumptions about our opponents.

Another  way to play "desperate chess" is just to play normal chess -making the best moves you can and hope that our piece down will turn into two points down and then a point down and then an even game and so forth. You are desperately hoping that you will play enough better than your opponent that you will gradually get an equal game or better.  

I played on down a piece against a 1950+ player at las vegas, just kept making constant threats and good moves and my opponent eventually blundered a complicated perpetual. If it's worth a half point at a major tournament, I'll play any game to it's conclusion. However, in online chess it's probably best just to resign.

shepti what you just said makes a lot of sense. It makes a big difference who you are playing and what kind of time limits and other details...

I already did it. You just recyle them every 2weeks or so like they were new. As it would appear somebody who just meet you here. Even when to the point you said i was right about all it which took 4 wks. And trust me everybody it was not worth it. As he waits like 1-2 weeks and restarts all over again.