Resignation Etiquette

Mandelshtam -

I absolutely love Nietzsche, Heiddegger, Hesse, Rilke, Gide, Holderlin, Ratzinger, and Novalis.

The perspective I've come to have (and I consider my view considerate and nuanced) over what happened with Germany in World War 2 - (quick disclaimer: I'm young and I've never lived there, though I myself am German; Bischoff) - is that the scary yet amazing aspect of these events is that the horrors of war came out of a genuine flourishing/ferment of an extremely civilized people.

I trace this seed to Goethe and the flourishing of German Romanticism. The noble hopes and high-minded aspirations of a proud people were co-opted by vile forces which capitalized on what is the best in humanity for ultimately nefarious ends. Outsiders don't understand how easy it was for this people to become swept up in the propogandha and excitement, and then, even as the spoils of war were pouring into middle class coffers, and the self-esteem of a nation was being invigorated from their world war 1 humbling, people were (as they ALL are) happy to turn a blind eye and trust in the powers that be that everything was going well.

Not to bring religion into this [locked!] but perhaps I'll be allowed an ever so brief personal opinion - I think that the Devil works extra hard to tarnish and destroy really good things, ie. he redoubles his efforts to injure those who are on the righteous path.

To think the flowering of German Romanticism was polluted through such an ignoble atrocity. But it is a base prejuduice for people to collectively smear and reactively co-relate those of German descent with these events, just as it might be ridiculous to accuse a young American today of slavery.

Taking the Godwinning swipe of accusing you of fascism is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

Guten Abend, Mandelshtam.

Rael Wrote

I think that the Devil works extra hard to tarnish and destroy really good things, ie. he redoubles his efforts to injure those who are on the righteous path.

Great ideas are generally destroyed by greed.  Communism/socialism, not a bad idea on paper but put into practice destroyed by the greed of those "in power" or the sloth of those who claim to be equals but contribute nothing.

Capitalism, is all about greed.  It can be harnassed for good, but in general someone is always looking to put one over on someone else.

This guys, is what makes the world go round. No matter how noble a cause, how righteous it's leaders, eventually it will be destroyed by greed.

mandelshtam wrote:

alex 95, gottfried keller lived more than 150 years ago, we are talking about the world after WW 2.

 Says who?

In post #52, Mandelshtam wrote: "If If there wouldn't be the russian immigrants , USA could not compete with any European country having more than 30 Million inhabitants, (not to talk about the 'chess nations' Ukraina, Georgia, Armenia, Hungary, Iceland,...) " No mention of post-1945 there. No mention of Chess Olympiads either. (The 1st unofficial Chess Olympiad took place in Paris in 1924).

In post #58, Duffer1965 wrote: "Just to clarify a point: Every American is either an immigrant or the descendants of immigrants (even the Native Americans came from Eurasia). .."  no mention of post-1945 there.

In post #69, Mandelshtam wrote: "The USA has a nation of more than 250 Million people, with huge number of highly educated people. Don't you think this justifies an expectation of a much stronger chess nation, with some hundred GM's ?"

In post #70, Mandelshtam wrote: I pointed to the fact that the good results of the USA in recent Chess Olympiades is due to the Russian immigrants." No, you didn't. This is the first mention of Chess Olympiads

In post #75, Duffer1965 wrote:

You might have that expecation if you don't think about it very deeply. How many GMs does China have? With a population of 1.3 billion, by your "reasoning," 20% of the GMs in the world should be Chinese.

But if you want to feel superior, by all means don't let me stop you.

In post #78, Mandelshtam wrote:

This really sucks. Whenever I start with a tiny criticism against the USA, some of you superpatriots attacks me, leaving the ground of reason and compares me with 'Hitlerjungen'.

Shall I give you a list of nations which has  more chess knowledge/culture per inhabitant ? Would you shut up then ?

In post #82, Mandelshtam wrote: I don't know you, so you cannot know me.

In post #110, Alex95 wrote: Don't forget Gottfried Keller!

In post #112, Mandelshtam wrote: alex 95, gottfried keller lived more than 150 years ago, we are talking about the world after WW 2.

This topic is actually about Resignation Etiquette. In my analysis, Mandelshtam has not explicitly made the points he says he has made (about chess olympiads or restricting the discourse to post-1945).

wish have your problems  it's up to everyone if he or she resign or not what's big deal ? :)

I do not see ANY substancial new argument in artfiiz longlong thread. He does not disprove any of my arguments.

About resignation etiquette, i have made my point very clear here, everybody can read it.

Hi Rael, I don't believe in devil (or god), may be you neither. But it IS amazing that Germany became the realm of evil (and not Greenland or some other wasteland), located in  the centre of Europe and having benefitted of easy access to both western and eastern and mediterranean culture through the  centuries, and having contributed so much to art, literature and philosophy of mankind.

I thought, as many of my countrymen, a lot why it could happen, that 60 Million people, with that background, could fall for an evil, illogical, destructive (and selfdestructive) ideology, and even become part of the crimes (if not directly, then by serving in the Wehrmacht, by closing the eyes, when the jews in your streets were harassed, and then brought away...).  

The mysticism in the spiritual world of germans is often mentioned as a possible reason for the ease with which Hitler pursuaded and then won some many germans. Also the  romanticism of 19th century. 

There is a point in this. Looking for a solution of problems in an idealized (never existing) past, in cultivation of hopelessness, in denying logic and reason.

But the fact of humiliation, (loss of territory after WW 1, economical and financial sanctions, late unification of Germany - only 1870, because of  many  internal conflicts, and with neighbors...) alone is not necessarily a reason for seeking revenge and demonizing all your neighbors. (Otherwise you could expect that nations like the Polish, the Bulgarians, the Russians, even the Chinese become easy victims for fascist ideologies, but they were not).

I personally believe that a major role plays the fact that there was an overextended sense of "greatness" in german conscience. This was fueled already by the fact that the first german emperors (Charles I, Otto I, III,...) in midages were blessed by the Pope, they used this blessing to unify the (always fighting) noble class , the name of the state (from Northern Italy to Baltic sea, and involving parts of France, including all kinds of languages, among them very different german dialects ) was

"Holy Roman Empire of German Nation".

The empire had kind of a centralized policy only until mid of 14th century, it was shattered by many regional wars (internal fights within the nobleclass mostly), the most traumatic one lasted 30 years: 1618-1648. In it one third of the population was exterminated, mostly due to hunger and devastation. (Many cases of cannibalism were reported from that war.)

That war is deeply imprinted in our subconscience (we are often closed-up, not very sociable, even suspicious, rarely smiling people...).

And the belief of uniqueness , that we were chosen by god, was very present during the first half of 20th century. (The last belief has essentially been  vanished; thx god, we are 'normal' Europeans now).

mandelshtam wrote:

I do not see ANY substancial new argument in artfiiz longlong thread. He does not disprove any of my arguments.

About resignation etiquette, i have made my point very clear here, everybody can read it.

1. The discussion is about Resignation Etiquette. It is not about Resignation Rules because there are no FIDE rules requiring resignation in normal play. (Here is a link to the FIDE rules: http://www.chessvariants.org/fidelaws.html )
2. Views were expressed about whether and when it was appropriate to resign. These views are well known and have been aired many times before, in this forum, for example.. Those who refuse to resign when they are completely lost.  (You made several points in that discussion (e.g. #210, and #212; so did I, e.g. #232, #236 and #259).
3. You make three main assertions: a) Americans, as a nation, have no manners. (I refer to your post #52).
4. b) You imply that: all chess players everywhere, in all forms of the game (e.g. Over The Board, RapidPlay, Correspondence Chess), in all settings (e.g. tournament play, friendly games) and at all levels of ability (e.g. beginner, club player, GM) should apply the same behavioural norms that you advocate, namely ‘resigning in a clearly lost position’. I infer this because I have never seen you qualify your views on 'continuing to play'.
5. c) In mentioning (in other topics and in your profile) your FIDE rating of 2265, you draw attention to the fact that majority of American chess players on this site have a lower chess rating than you.- and you imply that this gives you the right to be an authority on chess etiquette.
6. a) Your first assertion is not sustained by convincing evidence.
7. b) Your second assertion does not stand up to scrutiny. It does not take account of immediately obvious factors such as: whether clocks are being used (leading to a possible win by time-out), whether a losing player can learn something from a particular game by continuing to play, nor the likelihood of blunders by an unskilled opponent.
8. Your rating indicates that you have knowledge and skill in chess play and theory – not that you are an expert in chess etiquette/protocol/ethics.

ok artfizz, I think we have all discussed this a lot, no new arguments are heard anymore...

There is also another thread about the same thema, in the forums, where i said more about this. I said that I don't ASK my opponent to resign, when the position is dead-lost. BUT, I always tell AFTER a game what I think about it.

I also said several times, that it is not about rules , it is about ethics.

If a player has low rating he might simply not understand that he has 0 chances to turn the wheels.  But many  players here suggest that it is better to NOT resign even when you KNOW, you are lost. This is what I was arguing against.

You put words into my mouth that I have never used (I never said the words "US people have no manners", I did not even say that about chess players). I expressed many times my sympathy with Northern Americans as people, their optimism, open-mindedness. When I critizised, it was mostly the politics of the administration, or it was against the overextended selfesteem, as a nation, that many  USamericans (not canadeans) have.

My stories about misbehavior at the chess board and 'not vibrant chess life' are based on personal experiences when I lived in Missouri for 2 years, you can, but you need not to take it as severe (because it's just me).

But a fact is a fact:  the density of chess knowledge over the whole poulation , the number of opportunities to play, are higher in large parts of Europe than in USA. And this is in particular confirmed by the fact that many strong US players of the past and the present received all their chess education abroad, before they came to the USA.
I think this is in no way insulting, because chess is just a nice (but of course replaceble, and may be neglegible) part of our cultural existence.

Mandelshtam wrote:  "...baseball"

The U.S. supposedly isn't the best in the world at baseball...ever hear of Japan?

And I think it hilarious that the thread digressed so much because of one person.

I still think that you have to look at the game you are currently playing and try to look "x" amount of moves ahead.  If you don't think you are going to win, you probably won't.  Captain James T. Kirk made his fame on winning the Kobayashi Maru, supposedly unbeatable, by cheating (verified at the least in the series of ST novels; IDK if is was ever mentioned in the TV series).

On a chess.com match, the only real way to cheat (it's not like you can switch pieces when someone is not looking and hope they didn't notice...LOL if they didn't notice how good are they anyway?) is to use one of those fabled programs that analyzes moves for you.

And if you have to cheat to win, what is the chance you will use the resign button often anyways?

Any thoughts?  Or is that too off topic?

I think the Kobayashi Maru was mentioned in one of the movies or later series.

I've definitely heard it before.

mandelshtam wrote:

But a fact is a fact:  the density of chess knowledge over the whole poulation , the number of opportunities to play, are higher in large parts of Europe than in USA. And this is in particular confirmed by the fact that many strong US players of the past and the present received all their chess education abroad, before they came to the USA.
I think this is in no way insulting, because chess is just a nice (but of course replaceble, and may be neglegible) part of our cultural existence.

Man you are making yourself look foolish. 

If you had the most basic understanding of chess history you would not be so baffled by why chess is more prevalent in some regions of the world. 

Just google "chess history"  you can add in "chess history Russia"  to narrow it down a bit for you. 

Next time you want to make a point you might want to know what you are talking about as you have written a tomb on this thread alone that demonstrates your ignorance. 

it also seems you attract a good bit of negative attention because the world around you is so messed up. 

"In a war against the world - back the world"

F. Zappa

Regards

mandelshtam wrote:

....  But many  players here suggest that it is better to NOT resign even when you KNOW, you are lost. This is what I was arguing against.

You put words into my mouth that I have never used (I never said the words "US people have no manners", I did not even say that about chess players).

 Regarding your 2nd point above. What you actually said (in post #52) was:

The massive support that the 'nonresigners' receive here shows that USA is not a country of much chess tradition and culture.

I lived in Missouri for 2 years, I know what I am talking about. I witnessed many examples of misbehavior:  hammering the clock, not resigning in absolutely lost positions, continuing to play in drawish endgames (in timetrouble of the opponent), for instance rook and king against rook and king. And many players are just very weak, but they play in tournaments. 

• I contend that "Americans, as a nation, have no manners." is a fair interpretation of your words.

Regarding your 1st point, "many players here suggest that it is better to NOT resign even when you KNOW, you are lost".

• I would go further: 'perhaps the MAJORITY of players here suggest that it is better to NOT resign when you KNOW, you are lost'. You also say: "I don't ASK my opponent to resign, when the position is dead-lost." Yet you consistently attempt to bully all players on this site to do just that. Since you apparently display good manners at the chess board, why do you not extend the same courtesy in discussion?

I am definitely baffled by your thread acephalic... don't understand what you mean. What is wrong/ignorant that I said ? Tell me.

I assume you know, that I know a bit of chess history, and what I was talking about. Some folks around here still don't believe what I said in this forum. I was also not talking about Russia, or the states of the former Soviet Union only (if it is that what you mean ?). France, England, Austria, Hungary, Germany have a long chess  history as well, which is reflected by the active chess life in all of these countries.

Next time I will not defend myself against unsubstancial arguments (I don't mean you, acephalic, I mean artfizz!).

artfizz wrote:

mandelshtam wrote:

....  But many  players here suggest that it is better to NOT resign even when you KNOW, you are lost. This is what I was arguing against.

You put words into my mouth that I have never used (I never said the words "US people have no manners", I did not even say that about chess players).

 Regarding your 2nd point above. What you actually said (in post #52) was:

The massive support that the 'nonresigners' receive here shows that USA is not a country of much chess tradition and culture.

I lived in Missouri for 2 years, I know what I am talking about. I witnessed many examples of misbehavior:  hammering the clock, not resigning in absolutely lost positions, continuing to play in drawish endgames (in timetrouble of the opponent), for instance rook and king against rook and king. And many players are just very weak, but they play in tournaments. 

Regarding your 1st point, "many players here suggest that it is better to NOT resign even when you KNOW, you are lost".

There is no way to come to your conclusions from my citations above. If you are fair. The generalizations/simplifications were made by you.

You are perhaps right that most threads here support the 'never-resign option'. That does not show they represent the majority of all players in Chesscom. 

(The others may be just silent, I could have done the same...)

I assure you, in Germany and Russia most clubplayers, and ALL of those who have elo above 2100, will agree with my opinion about the issue (namely, there are situations when it is ethically better to resign, namely when you are completely lost and the timetrouble of the opponent is not too severe, that is, he has a few minutes left). The question remains, WHAT a completely lost position is, and here the opinions may indeed vary among them, (but not in a grotesque way, for instance, to continue in a game with only one rook on both sides left, and the opponent has still 5 minutes, I witnessed this in a tournament in Missouri in 2001).

You can keep your opinion, but you have also to live with the fact that there is a huge community of good chess players who does not share your view at all.

mandelshtam wrote:

I am definitely baffled by your thread acephalic... don't understand what you mean. What is wrong/ignorant that I said ? Tell me.

If you are wondering why chess is so prevalent in Europe you can read about this should all make sense. 

As for your personal history I doubt that it will ever make sense to you. With the banned threads and the numerous conflicts it would be highly unlikely that you don't have these same issues in your interpersonal life. 

It is the others who are to blame and this will be both your history and your future. 

Best Regards, 

Acephalic

Evil_Homer wrote:

I think the Kobayashi Maru was mentioned in one of the movies or later series.

 The Wrath of Khan. But was it mentioned in any TV episodes? Also, it seems there is variant of chess named after it - http://www.chessvariants.org/3d.dir/kobayashimaru.html - but that is way off topic.

Acephalic, if you don't tell me what I did wrong I cannot know (nobody will/would).

( The only fact which contributed above to our discussion was repeating what I said: namely that Europe has a richer chess history than America.)

I am a peaceful person, I have few conflicts. I fight (when I do) for a cause, not for myself. I blame myself first (which is a weakness, others tell me). How dare you to judge about my life.

I hate to give personal advices, but I ask you not to say 'Best regards' when you don't mean it.

Boring.

"I am a peaceful person, I have few conflicts. I fight (when I do) for a cause, not for myself."

Sorry to get you so upset

It just seems that you have an inordinate # of conflicts,  banned threads, etc... and the thought that you don't have these conflicts in real life is hard to imagine. 

Best Regards - I mean it !

exigentsky wrote:

I play OTB all the time and that's just not true. It's considered poor etiquette not to resign a clearly lost game and wait until mate is delivered. It is also a sign of a weak player and pointless. Of course, clearly lost varies based on the skill of the players. However, being down a Rook (without compensation) is more than enough to warrant resignation for any reasonable player. Still, it is certainly not against the rules to play on as long as you like.

 If you resign at the drop of a hat, you lose an important part of OTB play.  The meta game, and you lose the opportunity to pull a swindle for draw, or even turn the tables.

I like the attitude of play til you lose. 

1.  As a beginning player, resigning deprives me of DOING the endgame parts.  How can I learn how to get a draw or stalemate if I never get a chance to do it.

2.  Resigning gives the opponent the benefit of the doubt.  Sorry, I don't do that in competition.  Sure, you're better than me, but if I can beat you on time or eke out a stalemate, then that is a victory on my part.  1/2 is better than 0 in round robin play.

3.  If I'm overwhelmingly beat, maybe.  But just because you're a queen ahead doesn't mean I can't beat you.  You can still make a mistake.  I will hold on and make you earn it.

I'm not going to be snotty about it, not going to drag out every move til the last instant, but I'd rather lose on time fighting to overcome a deficit than give in.