When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal

Back in the day coaching juniors (U8's U10's etc) for OTB tournament play the advice given is not to resign and not to expect your opponent to resign. Deliver mate or get mated, no surrender, no draws, play to the bitter end. Similarly with offers of a draw, if your opponent offers you a draw ask yourself 'what is it they don't  like about the position'? Our juniors were taught the game backwards learning all the elementary checkmates, stalemate positions and how to convert a pawn before moving on to openings. The game is about checkmating your opponent, if you don't know how to checkmate you don't know how to play so why would you expect to win?

Our juniors were also taught the rules of play including the FIDE 'Quickplay finish' rule where you can claim a draw in the last 2 minutes of an OTB rapid play game (regardless of material or position) if your opponent cannot win by normal means or is not making an effort to win. Its not cheating, its not bad etiquette, its the rules!

Yeah, I played as a child and have taken up chess again (like many I imagine) during lock down, I can still hear my Grandpa telling me not to quit when I lose a queen! Though at that age I usually threw the table on the floor.

Is THIS why people keep resigning?  Because they think it's polite.  It's so annoying.  Just when the game gets fun and I can enjoy the benefit of my hard work, they resign.  Noooooo!!!!  It's like working hard all week, and then having my paycheck shown to me but not given to me, withheld.  I mean, it's their right to resign but it really makes me annoyed that they resign.  

Unfortunately, they will sometimes play things out, only because they see that I am short on time.  I mean, I like that they are not resigning, but it's annoying that it's only because they hope that I run out of time in a winning position.  They don't seem to love the game...

I agree. If someone has gone through the effort to get themselves in a winning position, it would be rude to deprive them of that hard work. The result is the same, a win. So it's just a matter of HOW that game is won. If someone feels like their time is wasted in performing checkmate, well then guess what, their time is also wasted in making the moves to GET to checkmate. I don't think there is any harm in resigning, it's just not very polite. 

Even top grandmasters will defend theoretically lost positions under tight time control if they see practical chances. Expecting under 1200 players to resign in blitz (!) is just ridiculous.

It is not against etiquette to continue playing if there's a real chance to save the game (even if the position is theoretically lost).

And talking about etiquette: blocking a player because you failed to convert your advantage into a win, that is bad sportsmanship.

Playing out 20-30 basically forced moves in a daily endgame over weeks, that is ridiculous. Nobody learns anything, it is a complete waste of time, and the losing party needs to resign. 

That said, I do not recommend that a person resigns, until they can logically and in detail explain exactly why they are resigning. 

I think it is okay for them to play on in a completely lost position. Someone with good technique shouldn't have any trouble converting quickly. If they just let their time drain, with no intention of playing on that is bad etiquette, and chess.com has a system to pair such players only with similar poor sports. 

I am afraid converting is part of the game, and especially in lower rated games anything is possible in terms of stalemates and blunders, so playing on is perfectly justified.

It's not ridiculous, it's the game.  HOWEVER, that said... if they're deliberately working on antagonizing the opponent unfairly then it's rude.  Never ridiculous though, the game is the game, what's ridiculous is telling others to lose rather than continue to fight on.  There is NO point in resigning because it's always a loss.

I love chess dot com because they've really learned in time to handle things well.  They still mess up a little, like by declaring a draw when a forced win is possible, but those errors aren't frequent issues.  What they do right: they don't let the opponent disturb you much from your game like by offering a draw.  I was on a site long ago where 1 minute games were often won with this technique: repeatedly flashing draw offers in the opponent's face to take the second or two off of the clock that's needed to beat him in a losing position.  The opponent would have to keep clicking No and the time it would take would be costly.

Yep. 

What I find interesting is that people get all bent out of shape if others play the game exactly as it was intended to be played. The actual purpose of the game is checkmate. And yet there are people who feel slighted if they have to checkmate. I've always felt if someone strongly wants the other side to resign, put them in a position where they cannot resign, checkmate.  

lollolololololol

+1

#1256

Gata Kamsky not happy with etiquette levels here. 

Lmao. Such a sore loser in that video. Imagine signing up for a tournament, knowing the rules and time restraints and complaining at the end. He should just stick to classical with that mindset.

To be fair they played a rematch and at the start of that he apologised for his outburst. Although increments were added in the rematch so he got his way. 

Idk anything about that tournament. But in general, flagging is still a way to end, like it or not.

That's rapid and blitz for you. You can win when you lose, win when you draw, loose when you win, loose when you draw, it's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up game.