so I guess he unfollowed it.
When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal
Sort:
RichardMCraven wrote:
I'm surprised to see that I'm just about the only person who agrees with the original poster. If I'm in a hopelessly lost position, and unless my opponent is seriously time-short, I resign. And if the positions are reversed, I appreciate my opponent doing the same.
That's fine and I also do the same. However, the original poster is trying to impose his own etiquette rules (that he made up in his own mind and are totally ridiculous) upon everyone else. As long as we obey the rules set forth by chess.com, we're good to go. No delusional etiquette rules need to be added to them. We all knew that he was nuts when he said that he blocks anyone who plays a gambit opening, because people are playing them just to annoy him. That's a sign of paranoid psychosis. Kinda like the guys that wear tin foil hats to prevent the aliens or the NSA from reading their minds. lol So, I'm not trying to feed his delusions, but am instead trying to reason with him and show him why he's wrong. Its also possible that he doesn't believe a word he's saying and that he's just a troll, looking for negative attention. In that case, he succeeded.
Dec 18, 2020
0
#966
PeasantElevator wrote:
he said he won't check his own posts lol
Probably just quit since no-one agrees with him.
Dec 18, 2020
0
#968
SuperiorConfidentHot wrote:
PeasantElevator wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
harthacnut wrote:
I try to be a good sport, but my inclination to resign varies on a case by case basis. Depending on the game I might have formed an impression of my opponent's skill or their "sportsmanship". If the game has been error-strewn or they are making a hash of cleaning up the board, I know that although mate should be forceable, a draw or stalemate is actually up for grabs. If they are very short on time, well, managing the clock is part of the game in blitz, so I don't see anything wrong with putting them to forcing mate within the time limit.
If they have a queen and king versus my king and therefore should be able to force mate trivially but insist on promoting all their other pawns before going in for the kill, I might make them play it out for a while because if they're going to waste my time I'm less inclined not to waste theirs. And if they open with something borderline insulting like e4...Qf3 (and I somehow screw up my response) I'm less inclined to help them out when it comes to the endgame.
Looking at it from the other side, too, except in clear book mate positions, I get much more satisfaction from playing out a checkmate than when an opponent resigns. Having to actually find checkmate is also a good learning tool - I'm not necessarily doing my opponent a favour by resigning. So sometimes if I judge it's the sort of position that were I on the other side, I might want to play out, I might keep going.
But if it 's a player for whom I have some respect and they have plenty of time remaining I will often resign as soon as they gain a decisive advantage, and then request a rematch.
That makes sense. Especially the part about promoting to extra queens. If someone is going to waste time doing that, there is every reason to believe they are not yet ready carry out an earlier mate with fewer pieces. So delaying the game actually helps both parties. It helps the side with more pieces, they can practice their mating technique (they need it). And it helps the side that's losing, they now have a real chance at a draw.
Uh I usually promote two queens because its a lot faster than way especially in blitz and bullet when you don't have time to pre move with only 1 queen.
You should spend no more than .1 seconds per move premoving on this website. More than enough time to deliver mate with a queen and king.
ok... when your removing, how do you know you won't accidentally premove a square where the opposing king is right next to it? You don't understand our logic.
You have been playing over a year and are lower rating than i've gotten in 6 months. why? because when i make a mistake or an error and lose, i reflect on what I did to lose, not complain to people about how it was poor etiquette for my opponent to beat me. Nevermind the fact that checkmate with rook and king is unbelievably easy, it takes 3 minutes to learn and you will never forget it. If you want to play against people who will resign when the game is lost, you need to be good enough to convert won positions.
1116 posts
XD you cant premove a queen mate??
Dec 18, 2020
0
#972
Alright I bet I can, it’s much safer however because two queens mate takes up less time than the systematic way when you are down in time
Dec 18, 2020
0
#973
Calamity_Destroyer wrote:
XD you cant premove a queen mate??
S t f u ur literally 1500 u can’t be talking. Let’s just assume you can’t do the two bishops mate (that’s rlly ez)
mikeoxlong889 wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
wornaki wrote:
Also, we'll also see if I get any respect sooner than 2000. Although, based on your rating I guess I do well in not respecting your opinion. ;)
Right. Nobody respects my opinions either, because I'm rated under 2000. That 2 at the front of the rating makes a big difference. I have been playing chess for 48 years though, have studied the game for much of that time and I used to be a club and tournament player, so a few people still value my opinions.
what an idiot. 48 years jeezzzzzz
what's wrong with playing chess for 48 years
Once I was stuck in a hopeless endgame but sticking to the end (not resigning), I won on time. Had he a minute more, he would have mated me (it was a mate in 8, KQ v K). It wasn't the cleanest win, but a win nonetheless.
Not resigning is annoying and mildly infuriating in most cases, but sometimes you can use it in your favor.
When people don't resign, I try to find the funniest checkmate possible.
mikeoxlong889 wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
wornaki wrote:
Also, we'll also see if I get any respect sooner than 2000. Although, based on your rating I guess I do well in not respecting your opinion. ;)
Right. Nobody respects my opinions either, because I'm rated under 2000. That 2 at the front of the rating makes a big difference. I have been playing chess for 48 years though, have studied the game for much of that time and I used to be a club and tournament player, so a few people still value my opinions.
what an idiot. 48 years jeezzzzzz
I'm 57 and I started playing at the age of 9. How exactly does that make me an idiot?
Dec 18, 2020
0
#979
You arrogance is appalling. You are telling us all to resign against you so you won't be forced to play without blundering. No thanks.
Dec 18, 2020
0
#980
Having digested most of the thread I think I am piecing together what @wornaki is trying to get at. It seems that he thinks that resignation etiquette is important in OTB play and that players who spend a lot of time in blitz, etc. where such etiquette is not observed will develop bad habits which will contaminate their OTB play.
Now, I don't think that's an inherently bad point, albeit I don't think there's any evidence that that is actually happening; I would wager that most players instinctively understand that there's a difference between online blitz and OTB and adjust their approach accordingly, so it seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
Still, if he had left it there, that would be one thing. He moves on to trying to encourage people to observe OTB etiquette in blitz, which under different circumstances I might call a romantic folly or a doomed noble crusade. The manner in which it's been conducted precludes that but, again, while I think it's a solution in search of a problem, if one considers that OTB is the correct way to play, taking a lead from it in order to polish up blitz is not wholly insane in itself.
Unfortunately there's a whole edifice constructed around this core idea which is built on such slipshod foundations and illogical reasoning that it's fundamentally unsound.
Firstly, context is key. This includes quality of player, hopelessness of position, and format of play. Context, however, is entirely ignored in wornaki's approach, and whenever challenged on this point, he ignores it and changes the subject.
Quality of player has been amply discussed, and goes hand in hand with the position itself. Not every player can finish off an advantageous position and you should only resign if you are reasonably confident that your opponent can: what constitutes a lost game will depend not only on the position but on the quality of your opponent. As demonstrated, wornaki failed to complete in the games he's complaining about, so the position was, by definition, not lost. There is an element of second-guessing in this, and assumptions do have to be made. One might say that it was disrespectful not to as it assumed wornaki would struggle. One might equally (and in my view, correctly) say that respect for one's ability has to be earned (whether during the game itself, or by way of rating) and that in this instance the opponent showed the correct amount of respect.
With regard to format, blitz is essentially what we're talking about here, and in blitz, managing the clock is as much a part of the game as making the right moves; your opponent putting you to playing extra moves to finish the game before you flag is not demonstrating any poorer etiquette than a player who's trying to checkmate you. That's the game you're playing. You can't expect a player to resign when the clock leaves them with a healthy chance any more than you can expect them to sacrifice pieces during play for no advantage.
In essence, there is no universal answer to this. It is impossible to say in isolation whether or not resignation is the right thing to do, just as it is impossible to say what the best move to make after 5 moves is. Whether resignation is appropriate will depend on the context just as the best move 6 will depend on what the first five moves were.
Finally, no one person is entitled to impose their own view of etiquette on everyone else. Etiquette is either imposed by rules, or in the absence of such rules, it's a consensus. If you find yourself out on your own, fighting a lone battle to persuade everyone that your view of etiquette is correct, you're probably the one demonstrating poor etiquette. That goes for all walks of life.
Overall, it seems that @wornaki considers that there is a "right" way to play chess, and playing any other way is gamesmanship. He is the sole arbiter of what this right way is. and it's the way he plays. Anyone who breaches this code (which is largely unspecified, and adjusted on an ongoing basis) is wrong. There's a name, in gaming circles, for players who approach games in this manner, and it rhymes with "grub". It's not something to aspire to.
he said he won't check his own posts lol