Imirak, IMHO you are entitled to play for as long as it pleases you to play for whatever reason. I sometimes play on in a drawn position simply because the position interests me and I want to explore it. I sometimes get accused of poor sportsmanship for not resigning in a lost position. It is not stubbornness, but actually a compliment to my opponent. I play on so I can learn from my opponent's technique converting the win.
Poor Sportsmanship?
Sort:
patzermike wrote:
So you are OK with me converting all my pawns into rooks or knights and bishops and only then checkmating you, if you refuse to resign and want to flag me in dead lost endings, right? I sometimes do that in fast games against opponents who play on when they "should" have resigned a long time ago. Funny enough, they often get offended. Talk about irony.
Imirak, IMHO you are entitled to play for as long as it pleases you to play for whatever reason. I sometimes play on in a drawn position simply because the position interests me and I want to explore it. I sometimes get accused of poor sportsmanship for not resigning in a lost position. It is not stubbornness, but actually a compliment to my opponent. I play on so I can learn from my opponent's technique converting the win.
Hoping your opponent would resign in frustration or simply blunder from impatience and feeling you did nothing wrong is one of the telltale signs of poor sportsmanship. It's not against the rules of chess, which is why the game attracts such high numbers of bad sports and will never be taken seriously outside of the chess community.
Nov 17, 2014
0
#5
No Debistro. Obviously if the win is routine and I have nothing to learn from it I resign. But I find it funny that people sometimes think I play on out of stubbornness when it is simply because I find the position interesting.
Debistro wrote:
So you are OK with me converting all my pawns into rooks or knights and bishops and only then checkmating you, if you refuse to resign and want to flag me in dead lost endings, right? I sometimes do that in fast games against opponents who play on when they "should" have resigned a long time ago. Funny enough, they often get offended. Talk about irony.
This is my point exactly. If someone is not willing to concede the game that we want to win, then we are perfectly justified in using our full clock time to achieve that goal. If they don't break down this game, perhaps they will be more likely to do so in the next.
Just because an act is allowed/legal doesn't mean such act is not poor sportmanship. At the end of the day, it is you who have to live with such an act. What anyone else thinks does not matter.
rayb808 wrote:
Just because an act is allowed/legal doesn't mean such act is not poor sportmanship. At the end of the day, it is you who have to live with such an act. What anyone else thinks does not matter.
All I expect are wins and to get pleasure from the game. If someone is dissatisfied with something about me, that's not my problem.
Though not spoken of very often in reference to chess, there is, in my opinion, a thing called chess etiquette (otherwise known as social observances required by good breeding). Hoping your opponent will resign out of frustration or make a blunder in a position that is clearly a draw isn't poor sportsmanship. It's a sign of immaturity and a lack of respect for your opponents. Playing a game to its end, when you feel you can win, is of course perfectly fine and appropriate. In your own words "the game finally ended when I got tired of toying with him and drew". Again, disrespectful.
You are able to reject a draw= however if your oponent can not make a legal move a draw is expected
Nov 17, 2014
0
#11
Wilkes1949 wrote:
Though not spoken of very often in reference to chess, there is, in my opinion, a thing called chess etiquette (otherwise known as social observances required by good breeding). Hoping your opponent will resign out of frustration or make a blunder in a position that is clearly a draw isn't poor sportsmanship. It's a sign of immaturity and a lack of respect for your opponents.
I'll have to agree with that.
Wilkes1949 wrote:
Though not spoken of very often in reference to chess, there is, in my opinion, a thing called chess etiquette (otherwise known as social observances required by good breeding). Hoping your opponent will resign out of frustration or make a blunder in a position that is clearly a draw isn't poor sportsmanship. It's a sign of immaturity and a lack of respect for your opponents.
Just because some people think that if your opponent plays a good game, it's ok to lose. I disagree. You should be merciless.
Wilkes1949 wrote:
You should voice this out in the Anand-Carlsen WCC thread ;-)
Though not spoken of very often in reference to chess, there is, in my opinion, a thing called chess etiquette (otherwise known as social observances required by good breeding). Hoping your opponent will resign out of frustration or make a blunder in a position that is clearly a draw isn't poor sportsmanship. It's a sign of immaturity and a lack of respect for your opponents. Playing a game to its end, when you feel you can win, is of course perfectly fine and appropriate. In your own words "the game finally ended when I got tired of toying with him and drew". Again, disrespectful.
imirak wrote:
Wilkes1949 wrote:
Though not spoken of very often in reference to chess, there is, in my opinion, a thing called chess etiquette (otherwise known as social observances required by good breeding). Hoping your opponent will resign out of frustration or make a blunder in a position that is clearly a draw isn't poor sportsmanship. It's a sign of immaturity and a lack of respect for your opponents.
Just because some people think that if your opponent plays a good game, it's ok to lose. I disagree. You should be merciless.
You have missed the whole point of my comment. This has nothing to do with how your opponent played the game or how much "mercy" is extended. It has to do with how you treat others. It's called good manners. respect, or as I stated before, etiquette.
For me chess etiquette OTB is limited to 2 things: handshake and "Have a good game" before the game, handshake and "Thanks" after the game. What happens on chess board is not a matter of etiquette, manners or respect.
GMs often agree to early draws, simply because they are too lazy and afraid to continue and risk loosing- These are not my words...but rather they were offered by a very well know GM in England. Then we have the best player on the Planet not accepting any easy draws, but testing the end-game skills of his lesser counterparts. The whole drawn position thing is a myth- the position is only drawn if you can find the correct moves on the board, under pressure. There is enough evidence out there to indicate, that not even GMs can find the best move every move...and they often blunder...and loose "drawn positions".
The game ended when I finally got tired of toying with him and drew, but I feel like I did nothing wrong. I generally refuse to draw unless I get bored and want to watch TV or something. Does this make me a poor sportsman?" Well which one is it? You drew because you had no choice or you got tired because you had no choice? Hitler didn't feel like he did anything wrong either. Amazing how this game gives imirak the illusionary power that he can toy with an opponent. Very revealing, very childish, and unstable. He faught a long hard game and all of a sudden in the end he wants to get bored and watch TV???? Nothing unstable there. HE'S BEEN HERE BEFORE WITH A DIFFERENT USER NAME LOOKING FOR APPROVAL WITH THE SAME EXAMPLE OF BAD BEHAVIOR!
??? lets say in a 15|10 rated game, i made a gross blunder in 30 th sec. then i get so boared at this that i opened facebook in a new tab. i have the right to make you wait for 15 minutes....
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
The game ended when I finally got tired of toying with him and drew, but I feel like I did nothing wrong. I generally refuse to draw unless I get bored and want to watch TV or something. Does this make me a poor sportsman?" Well which one is it? You drew because you had no choice or you got tired because you had no choice? Hitler didn't feel like he did anything wrong either. Amazing how this game gives imirak the illusionary power that he can toy with an opponent. Very revealing, very childish, and unstable. He faught a long hard game and all of a sudden in the end he wants to get bored and watch TV???? Nothing unstable there. HE'S BEEN HERE BEFORE WITH A DIFFERENT USER NAME LOOKING FOR APPROVAL WITH THE SAME EXAMPLE OF BAD BEHAVIOR!
Even after you write it in red capital letters I still don't see what's wrong and where is bad behavior.
Does this concept exist in chess?
I was recently accused of poor sportsmanship in a game because I refused to accept a draw in what is commonly acknowledged as a drawn position. Although the game was balanced in material, I continued playing for about 50 moves, running out the clock and hoping that my opponent would resign in frustration or simply blunder from impatience.
The game ended when I finally got tired of toying with him and drew, but I feel like I did nothing wrong. I have definitely won a game or two like this in the past, so I generally refuse to draw any game where I have mating material unless I get bored and want to watch TV or something.
Does this make me a poor sportsman?