When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal - Chess Forums - Page 43

Strangemover

Dec 17, 2020

0

#841

Give us the gambit block list!

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#842

wornaki wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

theendgame3 wrote:

Why don't you try longer time controls and forget about blitz- you have obviously jumped in at the deep end. In your profile you admit you' hate and don't know openings' any decent coach will tell you not to blitz anymore but to play longer time controls and study openings. I bet if you played some rapid 20 min games you would feel better and PLAY better. Just try it.

Honestly try this.

Stop commenting on this forum.

Play longer time controls and study openings.

Then let us know how you got on in a week maybe?

I bet your chess is better, you will feel better because you have learnt.

FORGET BLITZ AND BULLET AND LEARN.

YOU WILL NEVER LOOK BACK.

lets all try to encourage him now guys

I agree. Blitz is mostly about memorization and speed. If you haven't memorized your openings yet, then you should be playing rapid, classical or daily games, not blitz. Blitz won't help you improve. You're just going to make the same mistakes over and over again. Buy books, watch free online lessons on YouTube, do the free Tactics Trainers and Puzzle Rushes on here and play longer time controls. Then all of your etiquette ideas won't come into play as much, because you'll be able to crush all gambits and cheapo tactics.

I could, but I don't want to play any of that (except for daily, that I do play). Interestingly enough (lol), there are far less annoying cheapo loving wannabes in daily games. In any case, what I do is besides the point of my original post and besides the main point of my original message.

That again reinforces the point we have been trying to make. Why do you think you don't encounter the "so called cheapos" in blitz chess who don't resign...but you never meet such a person in daily chess?? Do you get it ??

Sure, because cheapo loving wannabes are usually beginners (not always and not for the same reasons every time) that play stuff that I don't feel like playing against. So, regardless of the result and regardless of their reasons, I don't want to play them.

They aren't cheapos. Its you who can't just understand the fundamental difference between blitz games and longer games. Time management is an essential component along with your chess skills. I guess I have repeated this 1000 times. Its just that your opponents were focused on playing average moves , but as fast as possible. While you engaged in making better moves but consumed more time. In the end their strategy worked more effectively and you get flagged . Flagging is a part of the game. If flagging was unsportsmanlike... why would such a concept even exist ?

wornaki

Dec 17, 2020

0

#843

horselover123 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

nTzT wrote:

In your very last game you blunder a piece and ruin the entire game and it's completely lost and then you make your opponent have to play 20+ more moves. The irony...

Wow, what a hypocrite. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If he's not going to resign, then why should his opponents?

Check again. Also, notice it wasn't forced mate.

i assume they refer to this game

which is now ur second to last played (at the time i am writing this) because you played another game

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/5989877408

i will insert board

So, summarizing...

- I should have resigned a piece down in something that wasn't even an endgame (My points about when to resign don't talk about this scenario)

- I should have resigned an endgame a few moves before I did (and yet, I did resign, thereby making my "transgression" a minor one at it)

Anything else worth adding to those conclusions?

wornaki

Dec 17, 2020

0

#844

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

wornaki wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

theendgame3 wrote:

Why don't you try longer time controls and forget about blitz- you have obviously jumped in at the deep end. In your profile you admit you' hate and don't know openings' any decent coach will tell you not to blitz anymore but to play longer time controls and study openings. I bet if you played some rapid 20 min games you would feel better and PLAY better. Just try it.

Honestly try this.

Stop commenting on this forum.

Play longer time controls and study openings.

Then let us know how you got on in a week maybe?

I bet your chess is better, you will feel better because you have learnt.

FORGET BLITZ AND BULLET AND LEARN.

YOU WILL NEVER LOOK BACK.

lets all try to encourage him now guys

I agree. Blitz is mostly about memorization and speed. If you haven't memorized your openings yet, then you should be playing rapid, classical or daily games, not blitz. Blitz won't help you improve. You're just going to make the same mistakes over and over again. Buy books, watch free online lessons on YouTube, do the free Tactics Trainers and Puzzle Rushes on here and play longer time controls. Then all of your etiquette ideas won't come into play as much, because you'll be able to crush all gambits and cheapo tactics.

I could, but I don't want to play any of that (except for daily, that I do play). Interestingly enough (lol), there are far less annoying cheapo loving wannabes in daily games. In any case, what I do is besides the point of my original post and besides the main point of my original message.

That again reinforces the point we have been trying to make. Why do you think you don't encounter the "so called cheapos" in blitz chess who don't resign...but you never meet such a person in daily chess?? Do you get it ??

Sure, because cheapo loving wannabes are usually beginners (not always and not for the same reasons every time) that play stuff that I don't feel like playing against. So, regardless of the result and regardless of their reasons, I don't want to play them.

They aren't cheapos. Its you who can't just understand the fundamental difference between blitz games and longer games. Time management is an essential component along with your chess skills. I guess I have repeated this 1000 times. Its just that your opponents were focused on playing average moves , but as fast as possible. While you engaged in making better moves but consumed more time. In the end their strategy worked more effectively and you get flagged . Flagging is a part of the game. If flagging was unsportsmanlike... why would such a concept even exist ?

I do understand the concept of time management and I never said flagging per se is unsportsmanlike (although I consider it ungentlemanly, which is not the same). What I am saying is that I can't care for certain style of players in blitz who play unsound stuff and never resign because that's how they view chess, without any regard to my concept of etiquette. And many of those players, if they play OTB, even blitz, do not play the same way.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#845

Optimissed wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Fine then. Keep with your so called perceived etiquette code. Nobody cares. The general consensus doesn't match your opinion. And please don't use the word trickster. LMAO. Its a part of the game. Players when they are new to the game are fascinated by gambits and other such traps. Doesn't mean they are cheapos. You call them out as if you yourself pay some high sophisticated GM level positional games.

Exactly. I rarely lose to gambits (except for the Queen's Gambit, which isn't risky at all and probably shouldn't even be classified as a gambit). I laugh when I see them, in fact. All you have to do is accept the pawn, get castled and develop quickly and you'll have a solid pawn up advantage.

Like 1. Nf3 ...f5 2. e4 ...fe maybe?

Sounds easy, but .....

Ok, I've never seen that one before. However, I no longer play 1. Nf3 and have never played 1. f5 for black, so I will probably never see that gambit in a game. 2. e4 is unsound, according to Stockfish. It suggests 3. Ng5 as the most solid response after 2. fxe4 though.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#846

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Fine then. Keep with your so called perceived etiquette code. Nobody cares. The general consensus doesn't match your opinion. And please don't use the word trickster. LMAO. Its a part of the game. Players when they are new to the game are fascinated by gambits and other such traps. Doesn't mean they are cheapos. You call them out as if you yourself pay some high sophisticated GM level positional games.

Exactly. I rarely lose to gambits (except for the Queen's Gambit, which isn't risky at all and probably shouldn't even be classified as a gambit). I laugh when I see them, in fact. All you have to do is accept the pawn, get castled and develop quickly and you'll have a solid pawn up advantage.

Kudos for rarely losing to gambits. My point about certain gambits as a proxy for a certain type of players is what I'm interesting in discussing.

All players have different styles. I don't prefer to play against guys who pawn storm my king, but I don't block them. Some players don't like to play against defensive players and counter-attackers like me, but they don't block me. We all have different strengths and weaknesses and styles of play. If you're gonna play chess, you will have to learn to deal with different playing styles.

wornaki

Dec 17, 2020

0

#847

JeffGreen333 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Fine then. Keep with your so called perceived etiquette code. Nobody cares. The general consensus doesn't match your opinion. And please don't use the word trickster. LMAO. Its a part of the game. Players when they are new to the game are fascinated by gambits and other such traps. Doesn't mean they are cheapos. You call them out as if you yourself pay some high sophisticated GM level positional games.

Exactly. I rarely lose to gambits (except for the Queen's Gambit, which isn't risky at all and probably shouldn't even be classified as a gambit). I laugh when I see them, in fact. All you have to do is accept the pawn, get castled and develop quickly and you'll have a solid pawn up advantage.

Kudos for rarely losing to gambits. My point about certain gambits as a proxy for a certain type of players is what I'm interesting in discussing.

All players have different styles. I don't prefer to play against guys who pawn storm my king, but I don't block them. Some players don't like to play against defensive players and counter-attackers like me, but they don't block me. We all have different strengths and weaknesses and styles of play. If you're gonna play chess, you will have to learn to deal with different playing styles.

Learn? Sure. Have to put up with certain stuff *repeatedly by the same player* in casual online play? I don't think so.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#848

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Then play 1. d4 e5 2. e3 exd4 3. exd4 d5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Qe2ch Qe7 7. QxQch (the Englund Gambit Declined). It's a bit drawish, but it will get them out of their prep. You can also play this variation of the Englund Gambit Accepted, if you want to go for the kill .... 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nxe5 5. e4 c6 6. NxNe5 QxNe5 7. Bd3 Bc5 8. Qe2 d6 9. Be3

You do realize that many players won't play those lines and that they are not "forced", right? Why waste time memorizing opening refutations at my level? It's useless. A win or a draw or a loss will not do anything for my online chess experience. Not facing players who play that nonsense, on the contrary, will do a lot for me.

You don't have to memorize the entire variation, 7-10 moves deep though. If you understand chess opening principles (center control, piece development, king safety, etc), then all you'll have to remember is 1. d4 e5 2. e3 and then you can wing it from there.

wornaki

Dec 17, 2020

0

#849

JeffGreen333 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Then play 1. d4 e5 2. d3 exd4 3. exd4 d5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Qe2ch Qe7 7. QxQch (the Englund Gambit Declined). It's a bit drawish, but it will get them out of their prep. You can also play this variation of the Englund Gambit Accepted, if you want to go for the kill .... 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nxe5 5. e4 c6 6. NxNe5 QxNe5 7. Bd3 Bc5 8. Qe2 d6 9. Be3

You do realize that many players won't play those lines and that they are not "forced", right? Why waste time memorizing opening refutations at my level? It's useless. A win or a draw or a loss will not do anything for my online chess experience. Not facing players who play that nonsense, on the contrary, will do a lot for me.

You don't have to memorize the entire variation, 7-10 moves deep though. If you understand chess opening principles (center control, piece development, king safety, etc), then all you'll have to remember is 1. d4 e5 2. d3 and then you can wing it from there.

2.d3? What? My point is that to memorize a non forced variation for about 7-10 moves at this level just because I may find an opponent who is a cheapo loving wannabe is a waste of effort.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#850

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

You missed the point of his comment. At the 1000 level, many blunders are made on both sides of the board (even more so when playing blitz). That's why you should always play it out. The only reason that someone has a winning position is that the other guy blundered more than he did, earlier in the game than he did. Who's to say that the guy that is currently "winning" won't start blundering more in the moves to come, especially if you're playing blitz? Your etiquette only makes sense at the Master level or above .... not at the 1000 (novice) level. You certainly don't deserve to win by resignation just because the other 1000-rated player made one more blunder earlier than you did in a blitz game. You will surely even up the blunder tally in the moves to come, because of your low rating and time trouble. Your entire argument is flawed.

Your point, shared by many here is that, since I'm a beginner and I play beginners, I have to expect players to never resign in case I blunder back. It's a good point, don't get me wrong, but imho, etiquette trumps level of play. I would resign a forced mate out of principle and many intermediate/advanced players would do so OTB too, regardless of opposition. Maybe not in online blitz (much less so in bullet) without increment, but even then, many would.

I'm just trying to show you that your rule of etiquette is flawed because you weren't really "winning" to begin with. If you were up a rook at a particular point of the game, at your level, it's because your opponent blundered more than you did or earlier than you did. It doesn't mean that you're a better player or that you deserved to win. Yes, your rating level has everything to do with it. At your level, there will be as many blunders as there are excellent moves. Why do you feel like you deserved to win just because he blundered earlier in the game (we can assume by your level that you will blunder more later in the game, to even up the score)? In a blitz game, between two 1000 players, it's not over til the fat lady sings. Maybe you don't realize how weak a 1000 player really is. You're only a Novice on a scale of Beginner, Novice, Club, Intermediate, Advanced, Master, Grandmaster. I'm not trying to discourage you. Just trying to show you the flaw in your logic.

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#851

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Ok, here's your problem. You believe that they are playing it out just to annoy you. lol This simply isn't true. They are playing it out to give themselves a chance to win and/or to preserve their rating. It's not about you at all. Nobody plays chess just to annoy their opponent. The world doesn't revolve around you. People have lives, go to school, go to work, sleep and play chess for entertainment, fun and competition. They don't have time to annoy total strangers on chess.com. lol

I wish I could believe that, but alas... I can't. In any case, if I am annoyed by their behaviour I have a tool at my disposal: a block. And blocked they are. Notice I didn't mention winning, losing, drawing or any rating thing.

Just curious ... when you go to block them, does chess.com's computer ask you what is your reason for blocking them? If so, which box do you check off? Harassment, Cussing, Verbal or Racial Abuse or I don't like their style of play. lol I'm pretty sure that last one isn't a choice.

wornaki

Dec 17, 2020

0

#852

JeffGreen333 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

You missed the point of his comment. At the 1000 level, many blunders are made on both sides of the board (even more so when playing blitz). That's why you should always play it out. The only reason that someone has a winning position is that the other guy blundered more than he did, earlier in the game than he did. Who's to say that the guy that is currently "winning" won't start blundering more in the moves to come, especially if you're playing blitz? Your etiquette only makes sense at the Master level or above .... not at the 1000 (novice) level. You certainly don't deserve to win by resignation just because the other 1000-rated player made one more blunder earlier than you did in a blitz game. You will surely even up the blunder tally in the moves to come, because of your low rating and time trouble. Your entire argument is flawed.

Your point, shared by many here is that, since I'm a beginner and I play beginners, I have to expect players to never resign in case I blunder back. It's a good point, don't get me wrong, but imho, etiquette trumps level of play. I would resign a forced mate out of principle and many intermediate/advanced players would do so OTB too, regardless of opposition. Maybe not in online blitz (much less so in bullet) without increment, but even then, many would.

I'm just trying to show you that your rule of etiquette is flawed because you weren't really "winning" to begin with. If you were up a rook at a particular point of the game, at your level, it's because your opponent blundered more than you did or earlier than you did. It doesn't mean that you're a better player or that you deserved to win. Yes, your rating level has everything to do with it. At your level, there will be as many blunders as there are excellent moves. Why do you feel like you deserved to win just because he blundered earlier in the game (we can assume by your level that you will blunder more later in the game, to even up the score)? In a blitz game, between two 1000 players, it's not over til the fat lady sings. Maybe you don't realize how weak a 1000 player really is. You're only a Novice on a scale of Beginner, Novice, Club, Intermediate, Advanced, Master, Grandmaster. I'm not trying to discourage you. Just trying to show you the flaw in your logic.

The game in question, which you can find linked to earlier is this thread was a R+K vs K endgame. You and I, and most players at my level know for sure that's a forced mate. Playing a forced mate is not following etiquette.

I don't get discouraged by you telling me that I'm a novice. I never claimed anything else for myself. What I find quite sad is that "because you're a novice player, your opponent can play till you drop dead expecting you to blunder". In some cases in online blitz, I have purposefully given up trying and given up even a queen in a Q+K vs K endgame and guess what happened? They didn't take it. Why? Because the idea was to annoy the opponent.

wornaki

Dec 17, 2020

0

#853

JeffGreen333 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Ok, here's your problem. You believe that they are playing it out just to annoy you. lol This simply isn't true. They are playing it out to give themselves a chance to win and/or to preserve their rating. It's not about you at all. Nobody plays chess just to annoy their opponent. The world doesn't revolve around you. People have lives, go to school, go to work, sleep and play chess for entertainment, fun and competition. They don't have time to annoy total strangers on chess.com. lol

I wish I could believe that, but alas... I can't. In any case, if I am annoyed by their behaviour I have a tool at my disposal: a block. And blocked they are. Notice I didn't mention winning, losing, drawing or any rating thing.

Just curious ... when you go to block them, does chess.com's computer ask you what is your reason for blocking them? If so, which box do you check off? Harassment, Cussing, Verbal or Racial Abuse or I don't like their style of play. lol I'm pretty sure that last one isn't a choice.

As far as I remember, there was no reason demanded of me to block the player. And there's usually an "other" category.

dah_happyh0ppyh0rsi3

Dec 17, 2020

0

#854

wornaki wrote:

A few times here I've stumbled upon non resigning people below 1200 in blitz. Granted, I play mostly 3+2 and increment accumulates if you know how to use it. Not to mention that it's blitz, so swindles and blundering are very much part of the nature of blitz. However...

As an appeal to all of you who never resign lost positions, not even down on time and on the board, please stop that. I know, I know, your opponent has to convert, it's within the rules, you want to see the checkmate pattern they go for to mate you, it's funny to see their blundering. But please, don't. Resign lost positions and play another game. If you can't resist forcing your opponent to convert 2 pieces up in the hopes of swindling (sometimes you will succeed in this) or you want to test if your opponent can mate you R+K vs K or B+K+k vs K, please... at least make it known in the chat, and do it infrequently, the more infrequently, the better.

I've recently blocked one player who forced me to mate him R+K vs K, and in the end I didn't (couldn't care). He got his well fought draw and I got to block him. Don't be that kind of beginner player. Unless you're playing a very important game (it doesn't even have to be rated to be important) and the consensus is that no quarter will be given, don't become the obnoxious non resigner.

Follow good etiquette. Acknowledge you're lost, resign and play your next game. If you ever play chess people OTB in either rapid or classical chess and you routinely don't resign obviously lost positions, your social standing in whatever serious chess scene will take a dive. It's all fun and whatnot in blitz over the internet. Heck, if there is no increment, flagging is part of the game... but please, don't get those attitudes in classical/rapid chess OTB. Learn to resign gracefully and become an upright chess citizen.

Honestly i like non resigners. One time, they let me promote 6 pawns to minor pieces and do two bishops mate 😉 So much fun

JeffGreen333

Dec 17, 2020

0

#855

horselover123 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

wornaki wrote:

The thing that I dislike about 1.d4 e5 and other similar stuff at my level in online blitz is that it's all about seeing how you can make someone fall for your trap .....

Then play 1. d4 e5 2. d3 exd4 3. exd4 d5 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Qe2ch Qe7 7. QxQch (the Englund Gambit Declined). It's a bit drawish, but it will get them out of their prep. You can also play this variation of the Englund Gambit Accepted, if you want to go for the kill .... 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Nc3 Nxe5 5. e4 c6 6. NxNe5 QxNe5 7. Bd3 Bc5 8. Qe2 d6 9. Be3

You do realize that many players won't play those lines and that they are not "forced", right? Why waste time memorizing opening refutations at my level? It's useless. A win or a draw or a loss will not do anything for my online chess experience. Not facing players who play that nonsense, on the contrary, will do a lot for me.

memorizing opening refutations isn't that good, just learn to make good moves and understand the opening refutations. if you memorize some opening and get a comfortable position but don't know how to play it, there is no point in memorizing if you will just blunder the game afterwards

I totally agree and wrote something like that in a more recent comment. I gave him my own pet lines as an example of how to deal with the Englund Gambit, but he shouldn't try to memorize them. Studying opening principles will accomplish a lot more and help him in all openings.

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#856

wornaki wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

wornaki wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

wornaki wrote:

JeffGreen333 wrote:

theendgame3 wrote:

Why don't you try longer time controls and forget about blitz- you have obviously jumped in at the deep end. In your profile you admit you' hate and don't know openings' any decent coach will tell you not to blitz anymore but to play longer time controls and study openings. I bet if you played some rapid 20 min games you would feel better and PLAY better. Just try it.

Honestly try this.

Stop commenting on this forum.

Play longer time controls and study openings.

Then let us know how you got on in a week maybe?

I bet your chess is better, you will feel better because you have learnt.

FORGET BLITZ AND BULLET AND LEARN.

YOU WILL NEVER LOOK BACK.

lets all try to encourage him now guys

I agree. Blitz is mostly about memorization and speed. If you haven't memorized your openings yet, then you should be playing rapid, classical or daily games, not blitz. Blitz won't help you improve. You're just going to make the same mistakes over and over again. Buy books, watch free online lessons on YouTube, do the free Tactics Trainers and Puzzle Rushes on here and play longer time controls. Then all of your etiquette ideas won't come into play as much, because you'll be able to crush all gambits and cheapo tactics.

I could, but I don't want to play any of that (except for daily, that I do play). Interestingly enough (lol), there are far less annoying cheapo loving wannabes in daily games. In any case, what I do is besides the point of my original post and besides the main point of my original message.

That again reinforces the point we have been trying to make. Why do you think you don't encounter the "so called cheapos" in blitz chess who don't resign...but you never meet such a person in daily chess?? Do you get it ??

Sure, because cheapo loving wannabes are usually beginners (not always and not for the same reasons every time) that play stuff that I don't feel like playing against. So, regardless of the result and regardless of their reasons, I don't want to play them.

They aren't cheapos. Its you who can't just understand the fundamental difference between blitz games and longer games. Time management is an essential component along with your chess skills. I guess I have repeated this 1000 times. Its just that your opponents were focused on playing average moves , but as fast as possible. While you engaged in making better moves but consumed more time. In the end their strategy worked more effectively and you get flagged . Flagging is a part of the game. If flagging was unsportsmanlike... why would such a concept even exist ?

I do understand the concept of time management and I never said flagging per se is unsportsmanlike (although I consider it ungentlemanly, which is not the same). What I am saying is that I can't care for certain style of players in blitz who play unsound stuff and never resign because that's how they view chess, without any regard to my concept of etiquette. And many of those players, if they play OTB, even blitz, do not play the same way.

What is it that you don't understand about time management ?? Its simple. Try to keep pace with the clock while making your moves depending on the time control you are playing. And what do you mean by unsound ? The stuff that you play are too sound ?

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#857

Yo guys

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#858

How are you...

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#859

I got the 1000th post

Anonymous_Dragon

Dec 17, 2020

0

#860

Optimissed wrote:

My, you can count well.

Thanks for the compliment.