Hey kids! Learn how to resign!
Sort:
chesstenor2018 who are you addressing?
Jan 23, 2020
0
#64
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
yes and demanding your opponent resign as opposed to actually beating them is a very poor sport.
But many believe that playing on forever is also a poor sport. It's another one of these things where everybody's pointing fingers (and heaping on blame).
Some people need a healthy dose of "never assume malice when . . ."
But I think that's the root complaint right? People feel their opponent is going against the spirit of the competition, and there are no shortage of ways to do that.
If you want my Elo you're going to have to take it from me.
Hey kid ! Learn how to checkmate !
Instead of whining your wish
Man who wants to resign here
Jan 24, 2020
0
#72
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
I wonder if the OP realises it's actually him in the wrong and him displaying poor sportsmanship.
Apart from people doing things actually against the rules, which is separate, literally every case of anyone claiming poor sportsmanship is exhibiting poor sportsmanship themselves instead. Sportsmanship is just one of those airy-fairy things that people use to push their own ideas of how people should act onto others. Chess has rules, anything else is just one person's petty ideas as to what they believe an opponent should do. If it was universal it would be part of the rules.
Optimissed wrote:
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
yes and demanding your opponent resign as opposed to actually beating them is a very poor sport.
But many believe that playing on forever is also a poor sport. It's another one of these things where everybody's pointing fingers (and heaping on blame).
The answer is in the rules of the game. Is it legal to play on? If I felt there was a 2% chance of a better result, I'd play on.
I think that's a good way of looking at it. I think a lot of times playing on to avoid the loss is just as challenging as playing on to win.
"If it cant be fun, what's the point?"
"Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself"
The Art of the Deal
Jan 24, 2020
0
#75
"Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself"
The Art of the Deal
I don't know about that. I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow it sounds like the sentiment of someone with a yuge sense of entitlement.
Jan 24, 2020
0
#76
themaskedbishop wrote:
You've all been there. You're at a tournament facing some little sandbagger, who has spent most of their chess life playing speed-skittles in the school cafeteria, while the math teacher who coaches the "chess club" hangs back and quietly vapes. [blah, blah, blah]
I was checking to see whether I had tried to run you out of time while you struggled to checkmate me with three queens, but it seems that we haven't played. Nor will we unless I change my settings.
tlay80 wrote:
"Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself"
The Art of the Deal
I don't know about that. I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow it sounds like the sentiment of someone with a yuge sense of entitlement.
Exactly the opposite. People play on to protect the draw (or possibly win) when they have a bad position is WORKING for the outcome. Or at least have fun doing it. Expecting people to resign when the opponent has no obligation to do so is the definition of entitlement.
If I can play so that the opponent has little to no chance of winning (draw) the rest will take care of itself. The win becomes much, much easier.
Jan 24, 2020
0
#78
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Expecting people to resign when the opponent has no obligation to do so is the definition of entitlement.
+1
It's pretty simple: the higher-level the match, the earlier you should be resigning. Between absolute beginners, "never resign" is fair enough advice - the losing player might be the beneficiary of a huge blunder, and the winning player gets practice in closing out wins, basic checkmate patterns etc.
Eventually you get to a level where you learn from bitter experience that there's no point in playing on a rook down with no compensation against a half-decent player. But players naturally learn that anyway after wasting enough time defending lost causes, and they start resigning.
randomuser101 wrote:
It's pretty simple: the higher-level the match, the earlier you should be resigning. Between absolute beginners, "never resign" is fair enough advice - the losing player might be the beneficiary of a huge blunder, and the winning player gets practice in closing out wins, basic checkmate patterns etc.
Eventually you get to a level where you learn from bitter experience that there's no point in playing on a rook down with no compensation against a half-decent player. But players naturally learn that anyway after wasting enough time defending lost causes, and they start resigning.
Ehh. I'm on the higher end of my chess club and the dude blundered a R+K ending and we drew by agreement. I was down on time by like 5 minutes to so it's 50/50 for me
TheCalculatorKid is 100% correct!