Resignation debate: Let's raise the stakes

When I see that my opponent has no way out or the result is a foregone conclusion, I will tell him "this game is about over, if you want to play another game shoot me a challenge". This has been accepted every time I have put it out there.

anaxagoras wrote:

New scenario:

 

You are playing a turn based game (like chess.com) with a strong opponent.  After a series of unfortunate errors, your opponent points out a forced mate in 6 moves, and asks you to resign.  You know that your opponent sees this forced checkmate correctly.  Do you think:

a)  Your opponent is being unsporstmanlike

b)  You ought to resign

If you believe a, I'd really like to know why.

---

 Under this idea, the chess.com server might as well automatically end every game where the superior player has a major advantage. Why not just give players with a rating above 1966 a button to resign the game for the other player? We could also provide them with a little icon that says "POMPOUS"

My personal opinion on this is that a player should resign if they know that, inevitably, they are lost.  There are no traps left to be sprung, no moves that complicate the issue, and the player is only dragging the game on.  While I am not against a learning opportunity, I think it is better for the player to concentrate on how to play even positions, not totally hopeless ones.  To me, going over a lost position is not helping me improve, nor is it giving my opponent (with exception of a spectacular mate) any satisfaction.  To me, its like the game losses interest because for whoever is winning, they are simply going through the motions and chess loses its enjoyability.  I think of it as "I should have enough respect for you not to force you to go through the motions when I'm clearly lost, you should have enough respect for me to not make me go through the motions when you're clearly lost."  

In my opinion, stating "mate in 6" is fine, requesting resignation is fine, but being annoyed that someone doesn't resign says more about the character of requestor. 

If a person wants to play it out, so be it - it may be of an interest and learning experience to see how this is played out, or any other reason.

I have never asked an opponent to resign and never will. However I have tortured such characters by queening all my pawns before checkmating them! I once had 5 queens to my opponents lone king and he still would NOT resign. This was on the net ofcourse. After queening all my pawns I then checkmated him and he wondered why I wouldnt give him a rematch! LOL

Showing a line to your opponent is not rude. Actually it's a common way to lower the number of envelopes in real correspondence chess. So you play your move and suggest few lines to your opponent. If he agrees to a line then you skip lets say 3 envelopes each if the line is 3 moves long.

Pointing out a mate in 6 is not rude. But asking for resign IS rude.

Asking someone to resign is in poor taste IMHO.  I would not.  Nor would I play with that person again.

Maybe chess should adopt something like the doubling cube in backgammon? Then you simply "double" when you feel you are winning easily and if your opponent wants to continue he loses twice the rating points? 

Reb wrote: Maybe chess should adopt something like the doubling cube in backgammon? Then you simply "double" when you feel you are winning easily and if your opponent wants to continue he loses twice the rating points? 

---

Then I'll "double"  all my opponents right from the start, and I suppose they'll double me, which in effect means we have just added another parameter to the Glico (is that spelled correctly) rating system manually!  

I would like to see draw offers in chess work like doubling does in backgammon.....when you offer one you cannot offer another until after your opponent does. This would stop the continual draw offer annoyance.

As I see it there are 2 factors here

 1: the person who should probably resign is completely within their rights not to do so.

 

2: The person playing them is perfectly within their rights to view the players non resignation however they wish.

 

Personally against reasonable opposition I would like to say I would resign a position I knew was lost. I have however had an occasion where I thought my position was lost though I could not calculate well enough to be sure. In that case I explained my thoughts and stated that I would therefore like to continue. Then played out the moves in due time until the situation became plainly untenable at which point it was simply good manners to say well done and resign.

I think it's right and proper to announce "mate in 6."  Resignation, at that point should be a foregone conclusion, but since some people may not comprehend that, I see absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting it, perhaps in the form of an option - "would you like to resign now or shall we play out the following forced moves?"  There's nothing at all impolite about this. And, as a result of the announcement of "mate in 6," I think the correct reply would be the same, "shall I resign now, or would you like to demonstrate the mate?"

 

That sounds VERY old fashioned . In fact I dont think anyone announces mates anymore . I think if I see a mate in 6 against me , and it is a pretty combination than I will let the player mate me just as a curtesy for good play . Also I don't think it is advisable or polite to ask the person to resign in any case, plus not everyone will believe your mate in 6 if they are not able to calculate it.

 

If you have to ask your opponent to resign you probably have not impressed him and probably would insult him also. Simple saying Mate in 6 should be sufficient. Better players should not only instruct each other in better play but also etiquette. However, if full-contact chess is an option, then I suggest the insult first.

If you have a forced mate in n moves, then stating it just saves time. It's not just a case of having a better position, it's game over! I think players who consider this rude are taking it too personally.

However, asking someone to resign is out of order. You could be wrong in your analysis of the mate.

In a GM game, Reshevsky once played a queen move, announced mate, and then watched as his opponent took his queen with a bishop. If Reshevsky can miss a bishop sitting on the board in front of him, we can certainly get a 'forced mate' in 5 or six moves wrong.

mxdplay4 wrote:

If you have a forced mate in n moves, then stating it just saves time. It's not just a case of having a better position, it's game over! I think players who consider this rude are taking it too personally.

However, asking someone to resign is out of order. You could be wrong in your analysis of the mate.

In a GM game, Reshevsky once played a queen move, announced mate, and then watched as his opponent took his queen with a bishop. If Reshevsky can miss a bishop sitting on the board in front of him, we can certainly get a 'forced mate' in 5 or six moves wrong.

---

Not me!!

I will never ask anyone to resign mainley if i create a murderous combo i like to binifit by saying cheakmate as an end reward

 

it is better to resign if you have more peices than your opponent you willlose less points  edward

The debate seems to be not on when to resign but what is polite. Since "polite" is a social standard and standards change over time and are different in cultures, I see this debate as pointless.

C

As soon as someone starts to think for more than a minuite in 10|0 rapid, I usually tell them to resign. If they can't move faster they shouldn't be playing that time control...