Was (Player) a good sport?

Good sport and this site doesn't match

Why would that be "a bad sport"? A bad sport would be to just continue a clearly lost game. Resigning is the proper thing to do.

An interesting question is: If you are clearly in a losing position, with significant material down, and you continue the game nevertheless because you have much more time on your clock than your opponent, would that be being a bad sport, opportunistic, or not? You are essentially trying to "steal" a victory from your opponent by abusing the clock rather than playing the game. I suppose two arguments could be made:

1) If you are in a clearly losing position, with no logical possibility of winning or even drawing against an opponent of their apparent strength, the sportsmanlike and gentlemanly thing to do is to concede, to essentially indicate "yes, I have been bested, this is a clean victory for you, you were better than me in this game". Trying to abuse the clock to get a victory by time in this kind of situation is opportunistic, low, disrespectful and a dickish thing to do.

2) If your opponent is indeed low on time, while you have plenty of time, that means your opponent used a lot more time than you in order to get into this winning position. He will have to prove that he can convert it into an actual victory using the time both of you have been allotted. The clock is a resource like anything else in the game. If you use up your resource and end up in a precarious situation because of that, that's on you, not on your opponent. Your opponent used his time more smartly. If you used up all your time to get into a winning position, you have to demonstrate that you can convert, using the time you have. If you can't, then you were not actually playing better.

That being said, regardless of which of those arguments is "correct", I have played many games where I felt that my opponent actually resigned way too easily. Such as for example me getting a rook in exchange for a bishop and a pawn, with tons of pawns and minor pieces still left on the board, and the situation not being clear at all. Many people at my level (ie. not very strong) will very quickly resign even from a relatively minor setback like that, even though they might still have a chance for a comeback. I think they have been instilled the notion that "rooks are better than bishops" and will immediately give up if they experience that exchange (even if they have a pawn or two more than their opponent).

Definitely. I have even had people offer a draw on a clearly lost game on unrated games, for reasons known only to them. It makes absolutely no sense.

Remember game 11 of the 1972 WCC?

Fischer continuing to play on, a Queen down against the World Champion?

Fischer was definitely the best insane ex-World-Chess-Champion.

Of course... we all have our personal favorites.

I think it depends. I get folks who offer draws in totally lost positions, and I'm just like, wtf. 

However, if the position is clearly a draw (King and Queen vs King and Queen, or King and Rook vs. King and Rook, etc.) I'll always offer a draw and I get pretty irritated if they decline. 

Grandmasters usually do not just blunder a whole piece away without getting any compensation in return - if they do, you will see them resign quickly, unless it is a bullet game or they are blitzing and the losing player is way ahead on the clock, making him prove that his time is sufficient for still winning the game.

If you are not resigning in a dead-lost position, that is pretty bad sportsmanship.

But then there is another question to be asked: If I end up trapping his king, and promote every single pawn that I have left to a queen, is that bad sportsmanship? I really like showing my opponents who ended up wasting my time, how far ahead I was in the end. Who does not like checkmating with 6 queens?

I would prefer to be able to put an automatic response at the end of the game thanking them for the game,it's not very nice to tell someone who blunders the game away "Good Game".  

i think they are just good sportsmanwonlostmanwonwomanship, but chess is not sport, nor is it science, and it is not a task, it is enjoyment, it sounds "poor" but it is truth, people just wanna connect, and they are nice, we should message them back and ask what they will men/women mend to say, see ya.

You could always add a friendly "Bwa-ha-ha-ha!" on the end.

yeah blueemu, its (maybe) "not" "nice" to say Good Game, i think it is very nice to say Good Game, or GG, everyone gave their own game which is good of chess, i think that maybe if chess is Sport, Science and/or ummmm. ....Scenery for each persons perspective of viewpoint, then it's all equal, and i think everyone is fair already of themselves, and nobody thinks they are better, victory or loss in chess, game, i apologize if i when i said=typed that chess is not sport or science,. Chess really or imaginarily is sport and science it is artificial alright, board game, joy of joys, above all, free expression of creating art where we learn  to behave properly with some things, which only we ourselves know, and share with others..

By what criteria are these things to be judged? We never spoke a word. They lost. Or, I lost. In what way, were either of us, good, or bad sports? I think someone is being paid too much, or has too much time on their hands.

I never resign.  When I get into situations that are "clearly" lost for me, I tell the other player I never resign. The fact I never resign is on my profile.  Anyone playing against me gets the full game.  I am always disappointed when the other player resigns.  I would rather play out the full game and get an actual checkmate than have the other player resign.

See, if you're playing in the pool, people don't get to look at your profile. If they do, and abort the game, they potentially get punished for aborting too many games.

I understand the reasoning behind fighting to the end, and it's certainly not ridiculous. But it's everyone else who pays the price for it, not you.

The not resigning point is fine if we're talking about a situation where you just want to play the mate out to the end, but what about where you're down massive material entering an endgame and you just make moves to run the clock down?

It's within the rules so I don't complain (well, this is complaining I guess) but I have to admit it  bugs me when they win, because they played badly faster than me.

Hardly what I call being a good sport but it's common practice. I notice when streamers are playing famous GMs they always resign when the position is lost as they know if they want to get more games that doing this makes them look like a prick.

harbi_canoshi=i type=for you what i do=and why not speak of friendship, the middle =where everyone has a say of thought, and communicate, you say to me what you think if you want , but you're right, nobody has to type anything after or before or during chess bless game.

delcarpenter=i say to myself "im not a sprout or rotten" let we be equal, who win we lose, we learn from better "gorey" "allegory" players, or "worse" players in chess, we get ideas from everyone. and that ain't no newsletter from me, im sorry if im pestering or a influence, im not perfect. and a no means no. yes means yes. of course.

the_real_greco: you're ok. you're fine free, yeah, on chess.com going off screen or another chess.com tab in new tab on web browser maybe abandones the game, and nulifies our and opponents attention. which harbi_canoshi said "we never said a word. either somebody got paid too much or they got too much time on their... ." im sorry for paraphrasing harbi_canoshi, i believe yes and no, are connected, as much as free, chess is art of construction, constructioning, positionally, as together, friends sort of, even the chat display "adopts a stance" of "mimicing" or "mimicry" or anything else can distract or does not distract at all, im not on a high level in chess, so no need to check me out. so you're all right, alright. "chess improve stance, what is empty, what, there are many questions, we ask answers and get questions, and vice versa in chess" chess is a sort of communication, a common language through/(out) all , ye, *sigh* we all beneath, bequeath chess game.

romannosejob, i just want to enjoy the game of chess, and do my best to do work of my own, art or sport or science or communication through, secondly, firstly, in chess.

romannosejob, ye/ah, you're right, im sorry, i got wrong.

romannosejob, i speak for myself, trying through type= i try to find answers to (my own) gameplay, and i worked for it, sport, science or art and joy, chess. i don't know, i try to meditate through chess on myself, find peace, to learn from Players of Chess Game, me as a begginer  you know'  it isn't all why people resign against play, layered know.how good people of chess game, it's because position, strategy or tactics or opening or endgame or middle game or any sort of pattern like pin, discovery attack, discovery defence, was missed or corrected  my friend

Is it allowed to say: "GG nub. Hau hau hau hau" - Moller Brygg

I was thinking about making a post about this...

Who's a good sport?  You are!  You're all good sports!

I play exclusively five minute blitz, so there's very little interaction outside of the moves themselves.  I would be unlikely to thumbs-down anyone.  What is the purpose of this new feature?  Will we be assigned social ratings to go along with our chess ratings, like they have in China?