A Question of Honor

It is honorable to defend a bad position. It widens our understanding of the 'equilibrium', and 'defendable position'. However, many people here have given a list of situations that does not leave any doubt about when a resignation, or an acceptance of a draw offer is appropriate. All nitpicking about such list was made with the only attempt to deny the existence of situations where a continuation is not honorable.

I would like to add one more thing: I believe there are situations when one side has a material advantage, but zero chance to win the game .

For instance,

opposite coloured bishops plus one pawn that can be blocked;

or: one rook each side, plus one pawn that is not far advanced, and the king of the weaker side is close to him,

and - what seems important in the latter case - both players have a rating, and must know/ have already shown within the last few moves the drawing mechanism in that endgame.

In such cases, I believe it is the moral obligation of the STRONGER side to offer a draw.

Can't help but suggest that if the position is drawn then neither side is stronger?

@LIMark: Maybe

Here is a game played recently chess.com. Although there is something different involved it serves to remind us of the importance of conducting a game of chess in sportsmanlike/dignified manner.

In all chess literature for endgames, the 'stronger side' is meant to be the one with more material.

I hope this explains it, lol.

I mentioned Rating later in my post. What I (again obviously !) menast was that players with no rating at all, can perhaps not convert even a huge material advantage into a win. In such cases, one can 'test' longer, although such games always leave a bad taste....

But if both players have SOME rating (national or FIDE), that is, their qualification is known to both, and their ability to convert a huge material advantage (with no counterplay of the opponent, and with enough time) into a win, and similarly, their ability to hold a dead-draw position, one of the two may offer a draw, this is sportsmenship.

I hope the (sometimes deliberate ?) misunderstanding of my posts stops now.

Touchy much?

an apology would be nice, instead you blame me for being 'touched' ?

thanks.  I know you dont troll.

Whether it is appropriate to resign is definitely dependent in part on the absolute and relative ratings of the players. In my view, one should resign when it is clear that it is impossible for you to win. This in part on how good the other player is. There are positions that i would immediately resign if i facd a GM but would play on if playing a patzer if i felt that there was a reasonable probability that he or she would make a mistake of sufficient magnitude to allow me to win or draw.

Once i watchedvthe end of a game my youngest son played in his first USCF tournament. My son had K+R versus lone K. My initial thought was that the other kid should resign because the position is a clear win for my son. After watching a few mooves, i realized that my son did not really understand how to mate with a rook and king. (i taught him the technique after that game; so now he does know.). Eventually, my son stumbled into the mate. In my view, it was appropriate for my son's opponent to play on given my son's skill level. However, if that kid were playing Magnus Carlsen in the same position, he should resign. IMO it would not only be pointless to play to the end, but it would also be rude.

schlechter55 wrote:

LongIslandMark wrote:

SquareDealer wrote:

schlechter55 wrote:

(comment # 223...)

In such cases, I believe it is the moral obligation of the STRONGER side to offer a draw.

Can't help but suggest that if the position is drawn then neither side is stronger?

I hesitate to answer for the other poster, but I think he meant the higher-rated player. He mentioned ratings in his post.

I mentioned Rating later in my post. What I (again obviously !) menast was that players with no rating at all, can perhaps not convert even a huge material advantage into a win. In such cases, one can 'test' longer, although such games always leave a bad taste....

But if both players have SOME rating (national or FIDE), that is, their qualification is known to both, and their ability to convert a huge material advantage (with no counterplay of the opponent, and with enough time) into a win, and similarly, their ability to hold a dead-draw position, one of the two may offer a draw, this is sportsmenship.

I hope the (sometimes deliberate ?) misunderstanding of my posts stops now.

That game was a (perhaps painful) lesson for your son. But he got the motivation from it to learn. That's why chess is such a good thing for children.

Certainly, the rating determines how long a game is played on.

All depends on the knowledge.

If a 5-year old kid plays Magnus, he might continue until checkmate, and nobody will be mad at him.

On the other hand, I would (and my clubmates with solid rating would) consider an adult who does not resign in a position with two pieces down and no counterplay for the loss, a kid.

@schlechter55

Quote #233:

[...] On the other hand, I would (and my clubmates with solid rating [...]

I can understand that the club setting is one thing, but ultimately no different. On the internet though, you don't know anything about your opponent or his motivations for playing. The title of this forum is A Question of Honor. It is agreed at the start of every   game that, until defeated, each player will have x amount of time to do his thing. Now, at a certain point unilaterally determined by you, you want to go back on your word, and dictate to your opponent that, contrary to the spirit of competion, he should do what you prefer. To me, that's not honorable. Keep your word. So until the rules of chess are changed to say that a certain level of perceived advantage constitutes a win (which I can't imagine any chess player wanting) you have no point. Position's so clear, why haven't you won already? Your time's so valuable, you can leave any time you want. And enough of this "grandmasters gentlemanly resign" baloney. Grandmasters and all others for that matter resign when for whatever reason they decide that it is no longer beneficial to themselves for them to continue.  

And, though I don't really think I'll be able to say this without rankling, you seem to be rather more willing to hang negative labels on folks who may not agree with you than is appropriate for somebody who goes around looking for apologies on the internet. 

By the way, ask an American what 'touchy' means. (Perhaps sometimes deliberate?)

Other than and including the above, best regards.

Uh, excuse me pal, who's the one doing the pointing around here?  You started out by claiming some sort of moral superiority based solely upon your provenance.  We all have our sordid pasts, so you'd best keep your allegations to yourself as well.

Best not blame me for your own failure to grasp analogies.

And yes, I too think that not all opinions are of equal value. Not sure what your point is (if indeed you have one).

Unfortunately, that is a tactic of which you seem to be completely ignorant.

You may be right Schlecter55.  I spent years trying to teach an individual about morals, ethics, and honor; it was a mistake. 

read the posts. I was DEFENDING myself. There were fotos of Mussolini, hookcrosses etc.... making gruesome, INSULTING implications. As if everybody who criticizes  the way ( held by americans in their overwhelming majority on chesscom, but NOT by europeans) to react to a lost or drawish position, would be an arrogant person, and be in the tradition of those fascists.

How could I NOT react to it ?

Despite of all that emotion, let me emphasize that I mean every word I said about US politics. Face it that most people outside your country do not appreciate what your government , your banks, your companies, your military does to the world. Like it or not.

Let us not talk politics anymore.

Ah Mark, you are giving anybody so much credit, because I think only Nobody can.

squaredealer.

1. I did not say at any moment that I will suggest DURING a game that my opponent should do this and that. Fairness requires that you remain silent during the game (unless the opponent distracts you, but in such cases, which are rare, it is always better to talk to the arbiter instead).

2. I was - like many others here - annoyed by the false pride shown by some fellows here who said they would never resign, trying to sell this as honorable (and at the same time other behavior as unpatient, or even cowardish).

I could not leave such opinion unanswered. The more that it is rare in my country, and in all chessclubs I visited (also the chess events and clubs in the USA that I visited) .

This probably went over the heads of most people reading it.