When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal

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.

I once heard that in some countries it’s considered proper to resign after your queen is taken

Indeed. In other games, like league of legends, where you get an advantage in something, the opponent might as well resign. Because at higher levels they're so good at capitalizing on it, there's no point. But not in some random chess match. 

Sounds like you’re just mad because your opponent didn’t give you the win (as well he shouldn’t have) you didn’t deserve the win if you couldn’t checkmate, or as you claim “couldn’t be bothered”, you didn’t even care enough to checkmate him so why should you get an easy win? Your opponent deserved the draw for playing it out and not giving up on a game he could draw. There are no rules that say you should resign nor is there widely understood etiquette and frankly I think it does both parties a disservice to resign before positions are played out, I didn’t just do all that work on a position to have my opponent resign before it got to be played out, and my opponent didn’t just play an entire game just to lose some points and come away with no new information or without having maybe seen a flaw in my position he could exploit

Myself, I'm disappointed that my opponent DID give me the win, in my third-to-last game.

I had only a rook and he gave me the win.  

I behaved very differently in my most recent game when I was the one behind by a rook.  It stalemated after I continued on in a lost position (KR versus a lone K).

Notwithstanding what the original author of this thread posted, the fact remains that I earned the draw.  Because no chess rule required that I give up and take a loss.

 

Notice to all:

Don't even talk to the original poster of this thread, only leave posts about this topic for the rest of us, people have been receiving this notice:

"You have been blocked from posting by the topic creator."

Maybe if enough people report him for it might get a worthy change on this site,  Thread posters probably shouldn't be able to impede self-expression about a topic.

wornaki: so let me get this straight. you played someone who refused to resign and you were unable to beat him/her. so you blocked him/her after you drew. now you are out here preaching to everyone else that you may find yourself playing that they should resign if they find themselves materially or positionally down vs you? and you think this is on grounds of 'etiquette?' is that about right?

edit: wornaki blocked me from making any additional posts to this thread one minute after i posted. i guess he just gets frustrated with having the entire world disagree with his viewpoint while literally not one person agrees with him over the course of months. dude, can you seriously not grasp that you are in the wrong here?

hmmmm

Right, all bets are off with super-fast time limits.

I have now come across at least four opponents who resigned when they shouldn’t have. So I would encourage players to fight out until the very end, if only as a learning experience.