if you are about to lose badly, do you resign or continue?

Sort:
Avatar of najdorf96

🤙🏼@SunTzu (btw best wishes man! Keep your head on a swivel, don't fall in for a risky combo, play solid-like, just play for a pawn majority into the endgame; and most importantly and I can't stress this enough: please please make sure you are registered to vote if you're gonna vote! Heh. Stay cool right back atcha!😉 #yanggang2020)

Avatar of TheSnakeWhoKills
delcarpenter wrote:

I never resign.  I promise to play a full game and do.  

Yup, I feel that if u resign it's sorta cheating ur opponent out of a win, even tho ur technically still loosing and ur opponent is still wining, ur opponent deserves to feel the satisfaction of moving that final piece and claiming CHECKMATE

Avatar of DiogenesDue
SunTzu_56 wrote:

no analingus talk!

Keep your hopes and dreams private, thanks.

Avatar of BaronVonChickenpants

I'm white in this game..... My opponent has been on vacation for weeks. I still hold out hope I'll win by timeout!

Avatar of lfPatriotGames
SorryImAnon wrote:

Nobody needs a reason to play out a position and it isn't to be questioned either.  Once two players agree to a game,  it's theirs to play and getting sour over playing too long or too short is an insult to that agreement,  to your opponent who is doing as they see fit and to yourself who opted into that situation in the first place.  There's just no defending it.

I agree. When two people agree to a game of chess, they agree to the rules and customs. I dont think it matters if the game is between friends or foes, the rules of the game are the same. Each person is free to play the game out, or not, as they wish. My opinion is that every game should be played to checkmate, or the end, because that's how the game was designed to be played. Just like all other recreation competitions. It's usually bad sportsmanship to quit, at any time. I do think there are exceptions, like if one person has a medical emergency, or simply both people agree to the resignation.

I think people who like to resign should be happy they are allowed to do so. Many other competitions there are penalties for quitting.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
lfPatriotGames wrote:

It's usually bad sportsmanship to quit, at any time. I do think there are exceptions, like if one person has a medical emergency, or simply both people agree to the resignation.

...or like when hundreds of years of tradition and evolution and the consensus of players dictate that resigning is just fine,  It doesn't really matter what you think about other games or endeavors in general.  Does it?

As for that consensus, when super GMs, IMs, masters, and tournament players in general stop resigning and agreeing to draws (also clearly an abomination, I would assume, not playing out the game?), you let me know.  You know who doesn't understand resigning or why it it a good thing, or why it developed historically?  Kids and fairly casual adults players, and of course people that don't play chess at all.  This argument you're making is like an American on a vacation in Europe who keeps complaining that things are not being done "right".  Broaden the perspective.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
SorryImAnon wrote:
 

Tournament players might have a pragmatic reason to end the game early,  it's never a moral issue.  

A very authoritative pronouncement for someone who only started playing chess recently and has not played in any rated games yet...by your own claims.

Avatar of lfPatriotGames
btickler wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

It's usually bad sportsmanship to quit, at any time. I do think there are exceptions, like if one person has a medical emergency, or simply both people agree to the resignation.

...or like when hundreds of years of tradition and evolution and the consensus of players dictate that resigning is just fine,  It doesn't really matter what you think about other games or endeavors in general.  Does it?

As for that consensus, when super GMs, IMs, masters, and tournament players in general stop resigning and agreeing to draws (also clearly an abomination, I would assume, not playing out the game?), you let me know.  You know who doesn't understand resigning or why it it a good thing, or why it developed historically?  Kids and fairly casual adults players, and of course people that don't play chess at all.  This argument you're making is like an American on a vacation in Europe who keeps complaining that things are not being done "right".  Broaden the perspective.

Yes. Like I said, people who like to resign should be happy it's allowed. Many other competitions issue penalties for quitting. Resigning is allowed, everyone knows that. But NOT resigning is also allowed and the game of chess was invented and designed to be played until the end. Why would you assume agreeing to a draw is an abomination when I already said both sides agreeing is an exception? Maybe both people have to be somewhere else, so both sides agree to a resignation or draw. What's wrong with that? I just think quitting, without the other sides consent, for no other reason than fear of losing is bad sportsmanship.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
lfPatriotGames wrote:
 

Yes. Like I said, people who like to resign should be happy it's allowed. Many other competitions issue penalties for quitting. Resigning is allowed, everyone knows that. But NOT resigning is also allowed and the game of chess was invented and designed to be played until the end. Why would you assume agreeing to a draw is an abomination when I already said both sides agreeing is an exception? Maybe both people have to be somewhere else, so both sides agree to a resignation or draw. What's wrong with that? I just think quitting, without the other sides consent, for no other reason than fear of losing is bad sportsmanship.

No other reason?  Resigning = loss.  Sooo...follow me here...fear of losing cannot be the only or even the primary reason for resigning wink.png.  This "quitters never win and winners never quit" mindset assumption is the base of your whole outlook, and it's just incorrect.  This is something you learned growing up in 'Murica.  Sportsmanship is determined by consensus of those who play each "sport", not by your Dad's platitudes.

I'm not talking about forcing anything.  Play out the K+Q vs K endgame if you want to...and I will make *my* choice to not keep playing you, because you don't value your own time or my time.  Many, many chess players, at a ratio that on average increases the better the player is you are facing, feel the same way.  So, do what you want to, but it will have consequences...some people won't play you after you keep doing this, many will consider you rude.  That candidate master you just played might skip the post mortem conversation (or just skip the rematch online) they usually have and go get a soda instead...etc.  

Now I'd like to specifically address the "you should be happy its allowed" mindset.  You should be happy that people suffer your opinions on this wink.png...because they are ultimately meaningless.  Do you also go into your grandma's quilting club and tell them how the rest of the world does things?  Communities, big and small, decide their own traditions, etiquette, values, etc.  If the status quo for chess tradition changes over time and resignation is someday seen as some heinous transgression, then it changes.  Meanwhile, though, you are on the "but I just want things my way" side of the argument, not I.  

Avatar of glamdring27

It's bad sportsmanship to resign.  It's bad sportsmanship not to resign.  It's bad sportsmanship to beat your opponent.  Basically it's bad sportsmanship to play chess at all because once you've agreed to a game there's no way out.

Except, of course, that 'sportsmanship' is codswallop.  Chess has rules.  Play by them and everything else is just fine.

Avatar of OUAT2TLG

one of the things that happens with online games is when someone just doesn't respond. sometimes it takes time to figure out the next best moves, but sometimes they just never come back. i've won games on time but i never know that for sure. i've had opponents make their move when they had only a few minutes left. the ones that just walk away and i win on time, i don't feel bad or slighted, it's just their choice. it's really the same as if they resigned, it just takes longer for it to happen.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
SorryImAnon wrote:
btickler wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
 

Tournament players might have a pragmatic reason to end the game early,  it's never a moral issue.  

A very authoritative pronouncement for someone who only started playing chess recently and has not played in any rated games yet...by your own claims.

I am very tomboyish.  

Are you going to try to tell me my statement is unreasonable or wrong?  

I don't need to tell you it's wrong...there's any number of articles and stories past and present about people resigning chess games for reasons that are about sportsmanship, not self-serving pragmatism.  Besides, it's not worth doing any major legwork when your account will be gone by next week.

Avatar of gururajsubramnya
If you really respect the game you must continue. Game thumb rule is never give up. One small mistake off your opponent can give you the game entirely yours. So be patient and focused.
Avatar of OUAT2TLG

personally, i'd rather continue. but i allow and accept the person who resigns, whatever their reason is. there's no right or wrong either way.

i guess i'm having trouble understanding why a comment or opinion here would insult or offend. if we all thought and felt the same way, there'd be no room  for discussion...

plus, with a hundred million of us online, i'm liable to be wrong more often that i'm right, yes?

Avatar of glamdring27

People who never give up have a lot to learn in life.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
SorryImAnon wrote:
 

I disagree with any articles and the people who resign out of respect or perceived morality.   

It's not a matter of being polite unless you intend it as such as a gesture,  but that's never inherently the case.  Just misplaced values.

As for my account being gone within the week,  Have at me wannabe hax0r,  i'm hiding behind 7 proxies.  

Oh, I'm not going to do it happy.png.

Avatar of TalSpin

Depends on the situation and the opponent. If my opponent is a strong player (relatively) and I have no doubt that they have the ability to win the position, I'll resign out of courtesy. Also will for a bad blunder in the opening in blitz. For lower rated opponents, I'll play it out as a courtesy. Winning a won position is a technique in and of itself and some need the practice.

If I see a possibility for a beautiful mate or combination for my opponent, I'll play on as well.

Avatar of najdorf96

SorryImAnon wrote: lfPatriotGames wrote: btickler wrote: lfPatriotGames wrote: It's usually bad sportsmanship to quit, at any time. I do think there are exceptions, like if one person has a medical emergency, or simply both people agree to the resignation....or like when hundreds of years of tradition and evolution and the consensus of players dictate that resigning is just fine,  It doesn't really matter what you think about other games or endeavors in general.  Does it?As for that consensus, when super GMs, IMs, masters, and tournament players in general stop resigning and agreeing to draws (also clearly an abomination, I would assume, not playing out the game?), you let me know.  You know who doesn't understand resigning or why it it a good thing, or why it developed historically?  Kids and fairly casual adults players, and of course people that don't play chess at all.  This argument you're making is like an American on a vacation in Europe who keeps complaining that things are not being done "right".  Broaden the perspective.Yes. Like I said, people who like to resign should be happy it's allowed. Many other competitions issue penalties for quitting. Resigning is allowed, everyone knows that. But NOT resigning is also allowed and the game of chess was invented and designed to be played until the end.Yes.  If people want the game to end that is provided for within the rules of a game.  Anyone who doesn't like it should make a variant where spectators can vote to forcibly resign either or both of the players but I don't think that would catch on. Indeed. I am in awe. That any one player here, in the 21st Century mind you, can unequivocally claim to know the Creator(s) of Chess' ultimate intentions for the rules, conduct and /or goal of this game in it's current form; despite 100s of years of 100s of games played since it's conception! Wow. You blow my mind! Here I thought for 30 years, all the tourneys, club play, casual games and now, playing online games off n on; That it was just a friggin game! Frack me! How the hell did I know I was this obligated? Talk about preconceived notions, man. Cool if you can direct me to the website where the Inventors, Creators, Board of Chess Morality I can enlighten myself herewith, ok? Much appreciated ✌🏽

Avatar of SunTzu_56

Do you guys know Anon? she challenged me to 4 rated matches, and it looks like she is undefeated, i gladly accepted, but the games ae 14 days/move. 14 days!?. is this some attempt at mockery? is she a commercial fisherman? And just between you and i and the Queen,  i considered resigning one of the games like 2 moves in just for a laugh. i want that cherry though...

Avatar of najdorf96

Indeed. @SunTzu~bro, do what ya gotta do but man! Take your expectations down a notch. Believe you me, no online mix action is worth any embarrassment, especially on this site. Be cool, grasshopper. 😎