When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal

Sort:
mpaetz

Two observations:                                                                                                        You continue to claim that he KNEW his position was lost. At the "under 1200" rating you mentioned, very likely he did not, or felt that you did not have the ability to win in that situation. He was proved to be correct.                                                                                                                          The etiquette point is that even if he WAS simply playing out a lost position in hopes of ineptitude or a gross blunder, you needn't make such a fuss about, but should concede that he was--as he proved--right to feel he still had a good chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wornaki
mpaetz wrote:

Two observations:                                                                                                        You continue to claim that he KNEW his position was lost. At the "under 1200" rating you mentioned, very likely he did not, or felt that you did not have the ability to win in that situation. He was proved to be correct.                                                                                                                          The etiquette point is that even if he WAS simply playing out a lost position in hopes of ineptitude or a gross blunder, you needn't make such a fuss about, but should concede that he was--as he proved--right to feel he still had a good chance.

 

 

 

1. I can only say, with regards to the moves in the game (it's linked to a few pages ago), my opponent played very good moves... very quickly so I'm quite sure he was familiar with the endgame.

2. I have blocked other people in other platforms even as I've won games like that. I have resigned mate in 1 (in my favor) because I was disgusted with my opponent. I have purposefully stalemated a won game because I didn't want to mate my opponent because it took too long (6 moves) with at least 4 lines and I had 20 seconds in my clock and no increment. All of that means I don't care about that game. I just used it as an illustrative point.

 

sndeww

I completely agree and sympathize with @Wornaki , but lets be honest, it's blitz. You don't resign in blitz, especially when you *really* want to win.

In rapid or longer time control, this would be more appropriate, but in <5min blitz, it just doesn't apply.

Elbow_Jobertski

Another way to look at this:

If a player has k&r v. k and does not know the mating pattern, then it is the player with the king and rook that is being rude by forcing the opponent to play out a drawn position. 

 

 

IMKeto
wornaki wrote:
IMBacon wrote:

"...block him and go on to this forum to complain he was developing a bad habit, continuing to grouse about it for days."

Learn to let it go.  At the end of the day.  Chess is just a game.

 

Right back at you Don't you think you have slandered me enough? No? What else can I do for you then?

You should learn what slander means.

Laskersnephew

"You don't resign in blitz, especially when you *really* want to win."

Resign in blitz? Who's got the time to resign?

Elbow_Jobertski
IMBacon wrote:
wornaki wrote:
IMBacon wrote:

"...block him and go on to this forum to complain he was developing a bad habit, continuing to grouse about it for days."

Learn to let it go.  At the end of the day.  Chess is just a game.

 

Right back at you Don't you think you have slandered me enough? No? What else can I do for you then?

You should learn what slander means.

Regrettably, these days it has become in popular usage a synonym for harsh criticism. All those kids with the twitters and rock and roll and blue jeans and all that. 

IMKeto
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
wornaki wrote:
IMBacon wrote:

"...block him and go on to this forum to complain he was developing a bad habit, continuing to grouse about it for days."

Learn to let it go.  At the end of the day.  Chess is just a game.

 

Right back at you Don't you think you have slandered me enough? No? What else can I do for you then?

You should learn what slander means.

Regrettably, these days it has become in popular usage a synonym for harsh criticism. All those kids with the twitters and rock and roll and blue jeans and all that. 

One of the most overused, and misused words now.  Right up there with bullied, offended, racist, and "I know what im talking about"

Calamity_Destroyer

ok...... so resign in positions when ur opponent knows how to mate u from there, and there is nothing u can do about it, and u are 2 minutes+lower on time

wornaki
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:

Another way to look at this:

If a player has k&r v. k and does not know the mating pattern, then it is the player with the king and rook that is being rude by forcing the opponent to play out a drawn position. 

 

 

 

You do realize that the attitude behind that is the reason why I used it as an illustrative position, don't you? I mean, the whole point of this thread is (once again, *sigh*) the non resigner mentality of blitz for beginners probably hindering them in the long run in an OTB chess scene in terms of the social standing you may have if you become known as the obnoxious player than never resigns. That was the whole point of my thread.

wornaki
IMBacon wrote:
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
wornaki wrote:
IMBacon wrote:

"...block him and go on to this forum to complain he was developing a bad habit, continuing to grouse about it for days."

Learn to let it go.  At the end of the day.  Chess is just a game.

 

Right back at you Don't you think you have slandered me enough? No? What else can I do for you then?

You should learn what slander means.

Regrettably, these days it has become in popular usage a synonym for harsh criticism. All those kids with the twitters and rock and roll and blue jeans and all that. 

One of the most overused, and misused words now.  Right up there with bullied, offended, racist, and "I know what im talking about"

 

According to Merriam Webster (bolding mine)

"the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation"

Let's see...have you uttered misrepresentations of my position in this thread? I'd say YES. Have you damaged my reputation? Arguably, YES. And yet, you persist. Why? I dare say because you are a bully at heart. Chess online is full of people like you... fully incapable of being nice, fully incapable of exercising civility when discussing opinions.

IMKeto
wornaki wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
wornaki wrote:
IMBacon wrote:

"...block him and go on to this forum to complain he was developing a bad habit, continuing to grouse about it for days."

Learn to let it go.  At the end of the day.  Chess is just a game.

 

Right back at you Don't you think you have slandered me enough? No? What else can I do for you then?

You should learn what slander means.

Regrettably, these days it has become in popular usage a synonym for harsh criticism. All those kids with the twitters and rock and roll and blue jeans and all that. 

One of the most overused, and misused words now.  Right up there with bullied, offended, racist, and "I know what im talking about"

 

According to Merriam Webster (bolding mine)

"the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation"

Let's see...have you uttered misrepresentations of my position in this thread? I'd say YES. Have you damaged my reputation? Arguably, YES. And yet, you persist. Why? I dare say because you are a bully at heart. Chess online is full of people like you... fully incapable of being nice, fully incapable of exercising civility when discussing opinions.

Do you understand how many times you have "slandered" yourself in this thread?

You have contradicted yourself so many times anyone that anyone that flunked out of law school would take this case.  Your the guy that lies about making up a lie to cover up a lie. At least you bring entertainment to these forums.  Another "Hey! i reinvented the wheel!"

wornaki

I have many reasons to believe the majority of the people who disagree with me on etiquette issues have fine points to disagree on. I can see a lot of strength to their arguments. It is a shame I can't say the same of others who have made it their goal in this thread not to discuss the points I made in my OP and in subsequent posts. I also have the feeling they, themselves would not be ferocious non resigners OTB in classical/rapid chess in a club scene, because at some point, it's likely to affect their standing in a community, regardless of the competitive spirit.

Elbow_Jobertski
wornaki wrote:

 

You do realize that the attitude behind that is the reason why I used it as an illustrative position, don't you? I mean, the whole point of this thread is (once again, *sigh*) the non resigner mentality of blitz for beginners probably hindering them in the long run in an OTB chess scene in terms of the social standing you may have if you become known as the obnoxious player than never resigns. That was the whole point of my thread.

 

...and my point is being the player that never offers a draw when he knows well he can't win is the exact same. 

 

Elbow_Jobertski
wornaki wrote:

I have many reasons to believe the majority of the people who disagree with me on etiquette issues have fine points to disagree on. I can see a lot of strength to their arguments. It is a shame I can't say the same of others who have made it their goal in this thread not to discuss the points I made in my OP and in subsequent posts. I also have the feeling they, themselves would not be ferocious non resigners OTB in classical/rapid chess in a club scene, because at some point, it's likely to affect their standing in a community, regardless of the competitive spirit.

 

If I for some reason wanted to get into OTB chess to the point where I gave a wet slap about social standing among chess players (yikes) and get into a k v. k/r endgame and my opponent doesn't know the mating pattern and throws a fit about having to finish it isn't my social standing that person should be concerned with.

 

 

wornaki
IMBacon wrote:
wornaki wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
wornaki wrote:
IMBacon wrote:

"...block him and go on to this forum to complain he was developing a bad habit, continuing to grouse about it for days."

Learn to let it go.  At the end of the day.  Chess is just a game.

 

Right back at you Don't you think you have slandered me enough? No? What else can I do for you then?

You should learn what slander means.

Regrettably, these days it has become in popular usage a synonym for harsh criticism. All those kids with the twitters and rock and roll and blue jeans and all that. 

One of the most overused, and misused words now.  Right up there with bullied, offended, racist, and "I know what im talking about"

 

According to Merriam Webster (bolding mine)

"the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation"

Let's see...have you uttered misrepresentations of my position in this thread? I'd say YES. Have you damaged my reputation? Arguably, YES. And yet, you persist. Why? I dare say because you are a bully at heart. Chess online is full of people like you... fully incapable of being nice, fully incapable of exercising civility when discussing opinions.

Do you understand how many times you have "slandered" yourself in this thread?

You have contradicted yourself so many times anyone that anyone that flunked out of law school would take this case.  Your the guy that lies about making up a lie to cover up a lie. At least you bring entertainment to these forums.  Another "Hey! i reinvented the wheel!"

 

What lies? What misrepresentation? Are you talking about times in which I have not followed etiquette? I admitted to that and also admitted it doesn't hurt my point. Are you talking about me blocking the guy? I had every right to do so. I gave all in here my rationale about it. You can agree or disagree, but that's it. Are my lies about being able to mate R+K vs K? Go see my games and you'll find the checkmating pattern done in no less than 5 games, probably more. Is my misrepresentation that I don't lump myself as a beginner? My rating doesn't lie. Neither does a thread on the emotional side of being a beginner just a few days ago, for I am a beginne

Honestly, I don't see any reason why you continue the hostility beyond your own inclinations towards bullying... and refusal to engage in civil discourse.

wornaki
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
wornaki wrote:

I have many reasons to believe the majority of the people who disagree with me on etiquette issues have fine points to disagree on. I can see a lot of strength to their arguments. It is a shame I can't say the same of others who have made it their goal in this thread not to discuss the points I made in my OP and in subsequent posts. I also have the feeling they, themselves would not be ferocious non resigners OTB in classical/rapid chess in a club scene, because at some point, it's likely to affect their standing in a community, regardless of the competitive spirit.

 

If I for some reason wanted to get into OTB chess to the point where I gave a wet slap about social standing among chess players (yikes) and get into a k v. k/r endgame and my opponent doesn't know the mating pattern and throws a fit about having to finish it isn't my social standing that person should be concerned with.

 

 

 

Let me put it this way. If you do this OTB in consistent fashion against club players you will be mated most of the time and many will: a) roll their eyes in exasperation and/or b) make a mental note about not engaging you off the board and/or c) brand you as an annoying player and (if vindictive or crossed) make sure they make your chess life as unpleasant as possible.

Elbow_Jobertski

Really, being able to mate rk v k and for some reason not doing it, forcing a 50 move draw and then posting a diatribe about etiquette is some next-level stuff. 

 

mpaetz

You seem to have many blitz games, so you should know that countless blunders occur, as most people can't see what's happening a lot of the time while trying to play quickly. You seem to think that every time you see a sure win for yourself and your opponent doesn't resign it is because he is disrespecting you. Please consider that the other player may not realize that he is lost. Perhaps if he were in your position he would not see the win, or know how to achieve it if he did think it was a winning position. Assuming that anyone that doesn't resign once YOU know that you are winning is really just trying to annoy you and should be shown up for his "poor sportsmanship" will not teach anyone good chess etiquette. Saying "He was boorish first so I showed him what real disrespect is all about" does nothing to improve the atmosphere in which we all live. 

Laskersnephew

When we get to the point in a chess forum where people are posting dictionary definitions of "slander," maybe it's time to move on