When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal

wornaki

Also, before you tell me (once again) to learn to mate with R and K, I block on principle. If you're the non resigner type, I don't want to play you (unless I know you somehow or the setting is official competition). Life's too short to deal with that kind of chess player. I encourage you ask to do the same with non resigners of the stubborn ilk. Don't let your chess life be filled with people who have such a distorted view of a game.

nklristic

This game proved that he shouldn't resign. It proved that you should work a bit on basic checkmates. 


wornaki
uwuPATROL64 wrote:

Your opponent is entitled to use all of his time,  end of story.

I'm entitled to blocking them for being obnoxious. End of story.

wornaki
nklristic wrote:

This game proved that he shouldn't resign. It proved that you should work a bit on basic checkmates. 


The game proved he's obnoxious. He even offered a draw at the beginning of the r+k vs k sequence. Again... I don't care about the result. I couldn't care less about my technique. I do care about playing well mannered opponents. He was not. Hence, he gets blocked.

wornaki
uwuPATROL64 wrote:
wornaki wrote:
uwuPATROL64 wrote:

Your opponent is entitled to use all of his time,  end of story.

I'm entitled to blocking them for being obnoxious. End of story.

Well would you rather be the strong, alpha male quiet type that goes to "the gym",  in this case the chess board,  does his business then leaves or would you rather be the little squeaky guy that gets mad over a game on the internet?    Have a nice life lol

 

Thank you. I hope you have a nice life yourself happy.png Also, remember that not everyone takes chess as a way to satisfy the desire to annoy others wink.png  Some of us like the game when it's played with well mannered people. Shane it can't always be the case.

Harmon90
As a total beginner , this question of Resigning intrigues me as it does come occasionally and unless I’ve only a few pieces left on the board I generally don’t resign as for me I want to learn to play the game , also do I have to agree to a draw? I have refused and gone on to win the game ! Is it wrong to do this ? And the players out there who on not checkmating in 3 who then resign .? I’m in the low end of below 200 so I’m pretty crap but I want to progress and the people I’m playing against aren’t much higher/lower than me , what is correct ?
nklristic

It is his time to waste it, and it is your job to prove the advantage. Offering a draw in losing position like that is dubious, for sure. If you were blocking him for that reason, I would understand. Your reasoning, however, is a bit unreasonable, in my humble opinion, as what he did isn't bad at all. It can make a player more resourceful, especially when they are lower rated. I will state my case below. 

I just know that I would be a lot worse today if I resigned at the first sign that I am losing the game. Not only that I have drawn and even won some of that games, but there is a secondary, much more important reason why you shouldn't be mad at someone because they are not resigning early. You would have less experience in endgames, you are less resourceful because you can't find tricky moves etc. if not playing out some bad positions. You don't have to play till mate, but at least for some time, and even till mate if you have the will at lower levels.

There was a game, I had a queen vs a knight endgame, it is completely winning but at that time, I am sure I didn't know how to win (I know now, but I could still mess it up because I had it only once on the board). My opponent just resigned without question, after about 5 seconds in an 1 hour per side game. On the other hand, I sacrificed a piece for opponent's last pawn and played out knight and bishop vs my lone king, and of course he didn't know how to win it, I still don't know that checkmate. 

Learning tricks, stalemate tricks, perpetual checks etc. , is not just important for losing positions, it transposes to other areas of the game.

If you are here just for fun, and don't care about improvement, that is valid, but if that is the case, why writing this post in the first place? happy.png

I would say that you would like to better your game. If that is the case, this is not really the way to do so. But of course, you may do as you wish.  If not something else, I am giving you the opportunity to block me right now and not be frustrated in the future if some algorithm decides for us to play a game, as you know my stance on resignation. 


nklristic
Harmon90 wrote:
As a total beginner , this question of Resigning intrigues me as it does come occasionally and unless I’ve only a few pieces left on the board I generally don’t resign as for me I want to learn to play the game , also do I have to agree to a draw? I have refused and gone on to win the game ! Is it wrong to do this ? And the players out there who on not checkmating in 3 who then resign .? I’m in the low end of below 200 so I’m pretty crap but I want to progress and the people I’m playing against aren’t much higher/lower than me , what is correct ?

You don't have to resign and you don't have to accept a draw if you don't want to. It is your right to play the way you like. Just don't offer draw offers after every move, don't get in a losing position and make your opponent wait for half an hour, or something else that is obviously not that nice. happy.png


 Apart from that, you may play your game as you see fit.

wornaki
Harmon90 wrote:
As a total beginner , this question of Resigning intrigues me as it does come occasionally and unless I’ve only a few pieces left on the board I generally don’t resign as for me I want to learn to play the game , also do I have to agree to a draw? I have refused and gone on to win the game ! Is it wrong to do this ? And the players out there who on not checkmating in 3 who then resign .? I’m in the low end of below 200 so I’m pretty crap but I want to progress and the people I’m playing against aren’t much higher/lower than me , what is correct ?

 

No, it's not wrong not to resign a game. You have the right to play on until checkmate, stalemate, draw by repetition or agreement or even draw by arbiter's decision (in tournament games). You do whatever you want within the rules. And the rules don't mandate resignation at any time.

My point is about etiquette and the way I see sportsmanlike conduct. You are free to disagree. You even have GMs like Serper in this very website supporting the "never resign" philosophy. I... just disagree. If someone doesn't resign a lost position and even offers a draw in it, my MO so far has been to ask why. If I get a "I never resign" response, I'm likely to block them. It's my right too happy.png

wornaki
nklristic wrote:

It is his time to waste it, and it is your job to prove the advantage. Offering a draw in losing position like that is dubious, for sure. If you were blocking him for that reason, I would understand. Your reasoning, however, is a bit unreasonable, in my humble opinion, as what he did isn't bad at all. It can make a player more resourceful, especially when they are lower rated. I will state my case below. 

I just know that I would be a lot worse today if I resigned at the first sign that I am losing the game. Not only that I have drawn and even won some of that games, but there is a secondary, much more important reason why you shouldn't be mad at someone because they are not resigning early. You would have less experience in endgames, you are less resourceful because you can't find tricky moves etc. if not playing out some bad positions. You don't have to play till mate, but at least for some time, and even till mate if you have the will at lower levels.

There was a game, I had a queen vs a knight endgame, it is completely winning but at that time, I am sure I didn't know how to win (I know now, but I could still mess it up because I had it only once on the board). My opponent just resigned without question, after about 5 seconds in an 1 hour per side game. On the other hand, I sacrificed a piece for opponent's last pawn and played out knight and bishop vs my lone king, and of course he didn't know how to win it, I still don't know that checkmate. 

Learning tricks, stalemate tricks, perpetual checks etc. , is not just important for losing positions, it transposes to other areas of the game.

If you are here just for fun, and don't care about improvement, that is valid, but if that is the case, why writing this post in the first place?

I would say that you would like to better your game. If that is the case, this is not really the way to do so. But of course, you may do as you wish.  If not something else, I am giving you the opportunity to block me right now and not be frustrated in the future if some algorithm decides for us to play a game, as you know my stance on resignation. 


I play here for fun (and only very distantly secondarily, for improvement). I do play chess in other places for improvement. And whereas I'll always morally disapprove of not resigning, I'm ok with it in official competitions or when I know it's the player's philosophy and I voluntarily enter the game. 

One of the things that blitz chess (especially over the Internet) has amped has been the rise of the non resigner mentality, the flagging mentality, the traps in the opening mentality. Even titled players who I like a lot have flirted or even downright espoused those philosophies. Paired with young people for whom winning at all costs comes naturally, the gentlemanly essence of the game is being lost at an accelerated pace. That's my take. And my very very very modest attempt to bring back manners by disengaging with people who go for that degeneration is what feels right to me.

BillyNoMates67

I am only about 700 rating, having been given 667 as a starting point. I went down to c400 and have only got back up because I have never resigned, and also because I continue games against the computer when my opponent resigns. You never know when a player will blunder. Some people resign the instant they blunder their queen, but I have often lost from being a queen up, so it is not always the best plan. It is perfectly within the rules to play until the end of the time. I've come back in endgames many times, from as much as -17 in material on one occasion, as I am much better at these than openings, and the clock is also a factor ( I play 10mins mostly ) and if time is limited, then them's the rules afaic. I often lose from having taken too much thinking time early on so that works both ways. I am sure it is very different for folk in the 1600+ bracket, as one can be much more certain of the likely outcome. I've also never regretted declining a draw, even if I lose I usually learn something.

wornaki
uwuPATROL64 wrote:

I'm sure nobody wants to play chess to annoy others,  but some people just love to be annoyed and whiny I guess.  Probably just a question of what they are and are not able to handle / how well they were raised.  

I'm actually quite sure that's not the case, for I have asked chess players. Competitive chess at higher levels (and arguably sometimes at lower levels too) is marked by trying to gain the upper hand in the psychological aspect of the game. If you can annoy your opponent you may have an edge. Interestingly enough, in competitive chess I haven't found nearly as many players going for the annoying label. Maybe because they've got reputations to keep.

wornaki
uwuPATROL64 wrote:

Seems like you're just being paranoid or looking for excuses?   I don't think anyone cares to annoy you,  you're just not making any sense.   Work on your own baggage instead of trying to pin it on random other players,   real talk.

Don't make it about me. I'm talking about the general principle of being annoying to your opponent, which plays a role in competitive chess. I've noticed that the non resigners, draw offer maniacs and play for tricks and traps players online are usually ultra competitive people, mostly young(ish) and typically very likely to be unappreciative of the nature of the game. Many, and I've asked them personally, derive pleasure from crushing their opponents on the board and they feel great about tricking opponents, annoying them and humiliating them if possible. They are, in a nutshell, the chess equivalent of bullies. Since I'm against that kind of attitudes, my response to the bullying type is to disengage. 

LVMHMike
Great topic
wornaki
StressFreaksMeOut wrote:
wornaki wrote:

You seem to believe that's a rule. I wonder why that is so (for a chance of a swindle)? it certainly can't to learn defense or else the beginner wouldn't have got themselves in the losing position in the first place...

bruh  🤦🏼‍♀️ beginners are told not to resign by their coaches.

Well, yeah. Coaches tend to do that. Even widely respected GMs do that here, publicly. I consider that well intended, but ultimately misguided and unreasonable advice. But hey, always go for what your coach tells you. I'm just a guy on the Internet. 

MarkGrubb

@Harmon on resigning, @llama posted what I think are some good comments on when to consider resigning. Message 106 on this thread, bullet 2). My view is that resignation depends on how you feel about the game. If you truly believe in your heart that the game is lost, your opponent has an advantage that you know they will convert and you've nothing to learn from making them work for it, then why play on? On the other hand, if there play has been sloppy and you wonder whether they can convert it before making another blunder, then you've every reason to insist they prove it by playing on.

Scottrf
wornaki wrote:
StressFreaksMeOut wrote:
wornaki wrote:

You seem to believe that's a rule. I wonder why that is so (for a chance of a swindle)? it certainly can't to learn defense or else the beginner wouldn't have got themselves in the losing position in the first place...

bruh  🤦🏼‍♀️ beginners are told not to resign by their coaches.

Well, yeah. Coaches tend to do that. Even widely respected GMs do that here, publicly. I consider that well intended, but ultimately misguided and unreasonable advice. But hey, always go for what your coach tells you. I'm just a guy on the Internet. 

Why on earth would anyone resign against you?

Your ratings show you don’t even have a basic understanding of the game and are likely to throw away an advantage at any moment.

wornaki
MarkGrubb wrote:

@Harmon on resigning, @llama posted what I think are some good comments on when to consider resigning. Message 106 on this thread, bullet 2). My view is that resignation depends on how you feel about the game. If you truly believe in your heart that the game is lost, your opponent has an advantage that you know they will convert and you've nothing to learn from making them work for it, then why play on? On the other hand, if there play has been sloppy and you wonder whether they can convert it before making another blunder, then you've every reason to insist they prove it by playing on.

A rather equitable position. happy.png

With time I've become more and more inflexibly set on my position, because I've experienced more and more instances of what amounts to unnecessary aggression to me. And the majority of those instances were not related to me playing. The older I get, the less patience I have with people whose main goal is to prevent others from enjoying the game. I can't condone behaviour that is directly aimed at breaking opponents psychologically and even drive them out of the game. Maybe it's because I've seen enough bullying in my life to be naive anymore about certain behaviors in online chess.

The_Atman777

I'll concede that its difficult to determine what's considered a losing position is all dependent on the strength of the player among other things.

Here's a position where I walked the king up the board. they wouldn't resign. Even at this point. 

my opponent resigned after blacks turn kc8.

Now,...the questions that beg to be asked are.

1. Did my opponents playing strength factor in their decision to resign or not?

2. Was my opponent just giving me a chance to blunder?

3. Or was my opponent being a [not a nice person] for not wanting to use the most appropriate term?

 

wornaki
Scottrf wrote:
wornaki wrote:
StressFreaksMeOut wrote:
wornaki wrote:

You seem to believe that's a rule. I wonder why that is so (for a chance of a swindle)? it certainly can't to learn defense or else the beginner wouldn't have got themselves in the losing position in the first place...

bruh  🤦🏼‍♀️ beginners are told not to resign by their coaches.

Well, yeah. Coaches tend to do that. Even widely respected GMs do that here, publicly. I consider that well intended, but ultimately misguided and unreasonable advice. But hey, always go for what your coach tells you. I'm just a guy on the Internet. 

Why on earth would anyone resign against you?

Your ratings show you don’t even have a basic understanding of the game and are likely to throw away an advantage at any moment.

 

Well, why wouldn't they? What do I resign? Because I respect my opponent outplaying me, regardless of their rating. Very rarely have I stayed from my own rules of conduct. 

In any case, if your coach tells you not to resign, it is advisable to go for that. I wouldn't, but that's because I don't see any value in making someone checkmate me out of spite. That's the same reason why I don't play for tricks and traps in the openings. I don't see any value in tricking my opponent. Is it legal? Sure. Is it sportsmanlike? Sure. Do I consider it morally correct? Not at all. But that's MY personal view of chess and I know it's not a popular one.