Irony defined?
Lack of Respect?
Sort:
beer wrote: Why do so many people care what other players do? Worry about yourselves and get on with your lives.
well alex i too think its the players right too play to the end .it doesnt bother me at all watever the choice.now all that said ive seen times wen i thought people should resign also but depends on wats being done i have read books strongly advising people too play to the end to c how your opponant will finish so u can learn thats reccommended alot. i have told people that same thing.i have played games were all was lost but i was trying for a stalemate dint happen for me though but i was learning.i have been stalemated my self like that a couple of times.so my freind sit back relax and enjoy and remember poeple are crazy u never know wat there going to say or do lol.
Jul 11, 2008
0
#24
As I've said before, I don't care in correspondence chess. I know that there's an etiquette in OTB chess, where some GMs will be offended if you make them play it out until mate. I wonder how often it ends up happening.
I had one "lack of respect" action happen to me. The situation was a game/10 tournament, my pairing was a 2400+ Senior Master. Late in the game, I offered a draw in what was an equal position, and he declined. No problem there. But after he tries too hard to win, I end up with a completely winning king and pawn ending, and he offers me the draw back. I just looked up at him with an "are you serious" look. I couldn't believe it.
Jul 11, 2008
0
#25
All things considered, I think that the most likely explanation is that they were having a good conversation.
that post proved my point. It just OOZES of arrogance and self-importance.
It seems disagreeing with you is arrogance, Olimar. And instead of actually addressing the point I raise (that just because something is "allowed" doesn't make it right) you resort to personal attack. Classy.
for me it depends on the atmosphere, if it was a stressful turnoment mach then i would be annoyed if my opponent played to the finish, but if it was a calm game
on the computer against a player which i play often i woulden't mind him playing to the finish hoping i would be dozed off and lose :)
i usualy resign just to ask a remach and kick his butt in the next one!!!
JG27Pyth wrote:
that post proved my point. It just OOZES of arrogance and self-importance.
It seems disagreeing with you is arrogance, Olimar. And instead of actually addressing the point I raise (that just because something is "allowed" doesn't make it right) you resort to personal attack. Classy.
In your other post you said that it was "ill-manners" to continue playing a game. Is that not showing arrogance and self-importance? You are basically saying that it is beneath you to continue a game you have "won." Is this not elitism? Do i seriously have to explain how self-centered that it? Do you need me to explain that to you? This is not a personal attack. I commented on the tone of your post, not of your individual character. Perhaps it is you who doesn't like to be in disagreement with someone else. I respect your opinion like all others, I just disagree with it.
I feel that in the final analysis, a rule is a rule, which means that it has overriding and binding force. If a player in a clearly losing position insists on playing on, it is within the rules and within his rights whether we like it or not. Every game, not just chess, is played to rules and accepting to play the game means accepting the rules. So it's no use complaining later.
An etiquette on the other hand is just, well, an etiquette. It has no force of authority except only that of good sportsmanship. If my opponent turns out to be a bad sport, I'll simply not play him again.
Jul 11, 2008
0
#30
It is common for GMs to be unhappy with players who make them play out until checkmate.
lol lol lol
I think a lot of people miss the point of this thread. I was asking - why would Black continue to play an obviously (to me at least) hopeless situation (there isn't even hope for stalemate due to free pawns), despite both him and his opponent being rated in 2500s.
Is it legal? Of course. Is it rude? You bet. The question was why, only a handful of people bothered to answer it.
Meh. Its over in one more move anyway.
Jul 11, 2008
0
#35
Usually when someone uses the cute phrase "that just proved my point" they're way off...Expecting resignation has nothing to do with self importance or arrogance, I'll win many chess games, I'll lose many chess games. If I'm up big I'm not lording it over my opponent demanding he resign, but simply hoping that he'll see playing on in a hopeless position for another 3 weeks isn't in either of our best interests. And don't bring up the doey eyed 1200 player who's trying to "learn" how to mate with a queen and rook. If I'm up a rook and a piece I'm capable enough to avoid some ridiculous stalemate attempt. You can continue in utterly hopeless situations, but barring other circumstances, it's poor sportsmanship
Well said Aleckeen, very well put.
Hmm funny that it's considered rude not to resign but not rude to complain when someone doesn't. If we're going to complain about rules, might as well complain about the en passant rule because my pawn "is disappeared" and the pawn promotion to queen rule because there are too many queens on the board and none of them Latifah. Joking! 
Actually I think many people in this thread has made the statement that it is impolite to ask people to resign.
Discussing ettiquette in general terms is not as rude, because you are talking in hypotheticals.
urk♥☺☻
To JG27pyth, well written!
To yoshtodd, that is true if your opponent dropped their queen and maybe their rook. Which i do not encounter too often. I do encounter pawn only endgames where I have a numerical advantage in pawns. Just a matter of time to queen the pawn and mate the opposing king.