Resignation Etiquette

I'm being invited back into this thread. I can resist. Oh no, I can't!

A simple question for you then, sir (mandelshtam):

In a King+Rook versus King situation: ought the player with the bare king to resign immediately upon reaching this situation, irrespective of any other consideration?

1.     For instance, even if both players are learners, the one with the bare king should resign.

2.     Or if a master has the bare king, and the learner has K+R, the master ought to resign.

3.     Or if the player with the K+R is in time trouble, the player with the bare king still ought to resign.

I would like, if I may, to request a simple answer: either Yes or No.

There is no simple yes or no.

There is no Chess RULE which forces you to resign - neither for the referee to terminate the game claiming a win . But there is an ethical obligation, I said that many times. If one took a few lessons in chess, he should know that this is exactly the right moment  to resign. With one possible exception: huge time trouble.

Huge time trouble here would be: less than 30 seconds. All players with rating > 1900 can mate with only one rook on the board when having 30 seconds left.

If you have less time in such a situation, your opponent can continue (and thus hope for a draw), I think this is hard to judge morally (it is, though, painful for the party with the rook, and even for the people who watch).

As far as I'm concerned, I would resign anyway.

By the way, this is the reason why many people are in favor for a time regulation with increment (10 seconds for instance, for each move), then such situations do not occur anymore.

A player with 2100 Elo will mate you in even less than 30 seconds with a rook, from every position.

I have another anecdote, not related to resigning attitude, but also to chess etiquette:

Once I saw a game with K +R vs. K+ R, in a small tournament in Missouri, in the B-group, with players all having less than 1900 rating.

One player was better in time (10 minutes), the other had about 3 minutes left and offered two times a draw which was rejected by the first!

The second player than indeed lost by time. In fact, it seemed to me that he did this deliberately, in order to show his ugly opponent that he was a moron!

He left the room calmly, but without looking at his opponent.

The first player after the game justified himself saying 'this was my only chance to win the B-group' (thx god, he didn't). I watched the game with my friend, a Czech mathematician, he told me 'when this would happen in my country, nobody would ever talk to that guy'.

In my opinion, the player with less time could have approached the referee  claiming  a draw.  The rule  says he (the referee) can fix a draw in such a situation.

Though I cannot remember wether such a rule already existed in 2001, when this happened.

grimreaper1973 wrote:

It was people that talk too much, always have to have the last word, and even if they are wrong make it out that in the end they are STILL right (like Mandelshtam) that got all the soap-on-a-roap, towel tie-downs, and sucker punches in the dark when I was in the service.  No offense, but from what I've seen and heard (and read EVERY post) that it would have been better to resign...the thread...for Mandelshtam.  You make a point, other people don't like it, and THEN the error committed was to CONTINUE analyzing why they don't like it.

     No offense.  Trying to be objective here.  And polite :)

The point is I was polite, some others here few times forgot such rules. I swallowed the personal attacks, in order to have a discussion continued.

I insisted in my opinion based on experience. Because none of my arguments was refuted, and because i share my convictions with the majority of advanced chaess players.

You grimreaper just don't like that facts, and therefore just claim the facts are not true.

The level of discussion is constantly going down on this forum, because all reasonable people have already left. 

If somebody says 2+2 is 4 and somebody says this has been refuted,  and the one who still insists in this should shut up, it is indeed time for him to leave.

Bye.

artfizz asked: In a King+Rook versus King situation: ought the player with the bare king to resign immediately ...mandelshtam replied:  There is no simple yes or no... But there is an ethical obligation, ...With one possible exception: huge time trouble. ... As far as I'm concerned, I would resign anyway.

1.  I realise that you (mandelshtam) have already left the discussion, but indulge me for a moment. You admit that it is not trivial to answer this question. I would guess that a great majority of players on this site would agree with you on that single point: that there are exceptions to the 'ethical obligation' to resign in such a situation.
2. Since we are discussing an ethical or moral dilemma, it is, necessarily, a decision that each individual must make for himself (or herself). I hope you agree with this point too.
3. My central point (and that of a great many other contributors, to be fair!) is this: this point of etiquette applies only in very specific circumstances. For instance, it would apply (in my humble opinion) when two masters are playing as individuals and not part of a team. It would apply IMHO when two masters are playing as individuals in a tournament (such as the one you describe) in your previous post. It would apply to a game on this site between two skilled players. Perhaps you agree in these 3 instances?
4. It would NOT apply, however, (In Many People's Humble Opinion) in the situation in which many of the games are played on this site. Many others have raised this point. I assume you disagree.
5. Although this 'moral imperative' is not in force on this site (by that I mean, it is not applicable to the majority of games on this site): that does not make the players who choose to play on - unethical, or immoral or rude or 'gamblers'. (About 50 different reasons have been offered for playing on.) I assume you disagree.

artfizz wrote:

 I realise that you (mandelshtam) have already left the discussion, but indulge me for a moment. You admit that it is not trivial to answer this question.

----

Any etiquette is a fuzzy rule, because it's not a 'law' taking into account all limit cases. You have to rely on your own judgement wether or not the rule applies.

In the case above mentioned the limit situation was when one was in time trouble.

----

I would guess that a great majority of players on this site would agree with you on that single point: that there are exceptions to the 'ethical obligation' to resign in such a situation. Since we are discussing an ethical or moral dilemma, it is, necessarily, a decision that each individual must make for himself (or herself). I hope you agree with this point too.

----

yes.

---

My central point (and that of a great many other contributors, to be fair!) is this: this point of etiquette applies only in very specific circumstances. For instance, it would apply (in my humble opinion) when two masters are playing as individuals and not part of a team. It would apply IMHO when two masters are playing as individuals in a tournament (such as the one you describe) in your previous post. It would apply to a game on this site between two skilled players. Perhaps you agree in these 3 instances? It would NOT apply, however, (In Many People's Humble Opinion) in the situation in which many of the games are played on this site. Many others have raised this point.

----

why? because the players are weak and cannot judge? I assume most players here are strong enough to judge that they are lost in the mentioned example. So why do you assume the circumstances here are different than in tournament play face-to-face? Because it's not 'serious' chess? Well, I take it serious, and many others, too.

---

I assume you disagree. Although this 'moral imperative' is not in force on this site (by that I mean, it is not applicable to the majority of games on this site): that does not make the players who choose to play on - unethical, or immoral or rude or 'gamblers'. (About 50 different reasons have been offered for playing on.) I assume you disagree.

---

yes, IMHO (o god, do we need this PC all the time?). I didn't say they are unethical, etc....  Just received bad chess education and don't know the chess etiquette, of course they can be great guys outside chess!

That indeed means they have a 'gambling' attitude. (Gamblers, for instance in poker and other card games where money is involved, fight to the last moment, because they don't play for the sake of beauty or friendship.)

Yes, when it comes to having fun and having practice and learning and killing time and suchwise: there is no particular reason to resign. In terms of practicing, e.g., it is a very bad idea, perhaps even bad etiquette, yes!, to resign, however bad your chances are. So sour grapes are indeed sour.

Professionals resign, sometimes, in particular circumstances, because they are playing, well, professionals. Playing on, again in certain circumstances, say in a heavy tournament, would make an "anti-etiquettist" professional look kinda stupid and dement, wouldn't it. It is not, necessarily, even a matter of etiquette.

But of course, if you should be so lucky that you have the spare time to throw it into amusing yourself, and others, at Chess.com, then make sure you hurry your opponent to resign were your case seems clear --- just so that you can keep on feeling you haven't wasted your time. What a waste of time it would be if your opponent wasn't telepathic! Then you would have to waste time, keepin' on tellin' the etiquette to the dumbs. And then you would have to face all the ignorance the moment you started a thread like this. ...Just to "make your point"? What point, eh?

Resignation is psychology.

I've just made a blunder against a 2000+ rated player as a result of being stressed out at being called a bastard, for not playing in the manner expected by an earlier opponent lol. (I'm really glad I got him going) .  Anyway, my point is,  there was no point in playing on.  There was no way he was going to make a similar blunder, and the game would be over very quickly.  I would have only insulted his intelligence and my own by continuing.

rubenshein wrote:

< LOADS OF EXCELLENT POINTS FOR DISCUSSION> ... Resignation is psychology.

Is chess nothing more than (A) a mathematical calculation or is it (B) a psychological battle of minds in which resigning - or not resigning - is a valid weapon?    A or B?

You resign when you feel you are lost. Why is that a weapon? The game is over then.

Chess is a battle of minds, and psychology is a part in it. The 'trap' is the simpliest weapon. But you don't talk during the game, that is, your opponent has to find your plans. Despite of calculation, psychology is in here, too.

not resigning in a completely lost position (piece down, with no compensation, and  with no timetrouble of your opponent) isn't a psychological weapon either, because, you are lost, and your opponent cannot fall down anymore. It just shows your disrespect, and annoys the spectators.

Chess is not merely mathematics, you foresee the events not only based on variants but on your knowledge of strategy.

The psychology comes in in many forms. Here is an example:  You prepare an opening novelty. Your opponent will be impressed. If the novelty is an improvement of the predecessing games, then you get an objective advantage. If not, you still have a PSYCHOLOGICAL advantage, because your opponent did not analyse the resulting situations before the game.

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

So wait then, am I supposed to be offended when someone takes the entire 3 days per move, or what? What if they are moving quickly, and then after they blunder a knight, then they "stretch out" the game? I'm confused here, can you point me in the right direction?

You can't decide to be offended. You either are offended or you're not. I think the issue would be whether to feel justified in being offended or to try to overcome it.

I can see a legitimate reason for taking more time -- you don't want to invest as much time in a game you will likely lose as other games where you are winning or it is even. I can also see an invalid reason -- you are a petty tyrant and can't stand the idea of someone bettering you, so you tweak his or her nose. It could be hard to tell what your opponents reason would be.

I think here, or in other correspondence games it is not THAT annoying if an opponent decides to prolong a completely lost game endlessly. Because you don't sit at the board (and have to wait for the opponent's move), you can just forget about the game, and thus don't lose valuable time. Also, he does not insult spectators (there are no).

Anyway, if my opponent does that with me, I would tell him after the game (never during the game!) that it is respectless to do so.

mandelshtam wrote:

I think here, or in other correspondence games it is not THAT annoying if an opponent decides to prolong a completely lost game endlessly. Because you don't sit at the board (and have to wait for the opponent's move), you can just forget about the game, and thus don't lose valuable time. Also, he does not insult spectators (there are no).

Anyway, if my opponent does that with me, I would tell him after the game (never during the game!) that it is respectless to do so.

 Excellent! Everyone has made their position absolutely crystal clear - a triumph for reasoned debate over name-calling.

Once again, a central point at issue is raised. To you (mandelshtam), this behaviour represents unequivocally a lack of respect. Even if your opponent does not intend it as a disrespectful action, you will interpret it as meaning that they lack respect for you (and also, perhaps, for the game of chess itself).

In an earlier post, you highlighted the instance of the manner in which someone handles a knife at mealtimes is a matter of culturally-conditioned etiquette. The point on which we differ is whether playing on / refusing to resign is ABSOLUTELY a sign of bad manners. You seem certain that it is. I am still not convinced.

Making psychology relevant, even acute, to chess, is itself a psychological blunder, a thing that definitely will not help you improve any chess skill whatsoever, and it will not help in the very game played. Some may think, for themselves, that psychology is part of it --- but it is clearly just waste of energy. The energy should, as far possible as be, be conducted onto the neatly framed board of dynamic geometry which chess may be said to be an example of. (A hopeless sentence.)

Mandelstahm writing that being a piece down, ergo resignation etiquette, informed democratically by vote polls, etc., etc...., well, that's not even psychology. I don't know what it is, but it is not psychology. And it is, clearly, evidently, not chess. Chess.com is all about learning, not about a 'list of ceremonial observances of a court.' The decorum lies purely in design, period. One could easily continue the line. Don't be offended Mandelstahm; it may be the case that we simply disagree. How could my psychological skills at introspection as to my opponent's possible intentions and ideas concerning pieces and lines on the board and as to my opponent's possible intentions and ideas about the same of mine possibly influence the pieces on board? There are pieces, moves, possibilities that accords to such moves, impossibilities, there are rules, decisions, and the game will be settled. 

mandelshtam wrote:

May I politely ask you why you asked your question then, if it was not implying that my experience is not relevant/significant?

You don't impress anybody with playing 'cat and mouse', and your continued suffisant florett attacks, 'given your track record'...

Since you did not give any counterargument against my report (you just gave it away) you implicitely agreed with me about the significance of it. Thank you.

Your experience was not an issue when you asserted that your opinion was the same as a majority of players in Germany. In response to my question, you used your purported experience.

A fact is not an argument. If you say fact X is true, someone may challenge the basis of your assertion. I don't offer "counterarguments" to factual assertions. I either accept the facts as true, disbelieve, or reserve judgment.

You have engaged in an effort at argument by resort to authority: You are trying to support your argument that certain behavior is out of bounds by relying on the authority of some group that supposedly holds a similar view. This argument requires two features to be valid: (1) you have to be factually correct about what this group believes; and (2) that group must have some accepted authority. At this point I'm not entirely sure what you claim the shared opinion is. I think you've done some back peddling on how strident you are being. If all you are asserting is that most people think higher rated players resign in lost positions, but lower rated players generally play on, that is a trivial assertion and I don't know that many people here would disagree.

I don't think it's playing "cat and mouse" to ask a question raising a doubt about your factual assertions and expecting something like a direct answer.

You are mistaken if you think you have been polite. You gratuitously attacked American chess players as lacking any chess culture and behavior poorly. Why was that necessary? And did you think that American chess players would not take umbrage at your gratuitous attack? What was the point of asserting that Americans would not accomplish anything in chess but for the recent influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe? I took it as a gratuitous effort to insult Americans; I have no idea what you intended by it.

im german you have to understand us germans some times we are thick the problem is that germany is no longer the power it use to be theyve lost some of there best people to come here they dont have to many bright people left regards edward hally

delta5ply wrote:

im german you have to understand us germans some times we are thick the problem is that germany is no longer the power it use to be theyve lost some of there best people to come here they dont have to many bright people left regards edward hally

A lot of my ancestors were German. In fact my father's parents spoke German at home as kids. But I don't think my family diminished the brain pool of Germany too much. :)

I've been to Germany a few times, and I did not see any evidence that there was a lack of brain power. Just the opposite in fact.

now its my lack of brain powre hah? How far further will you get? and you say what is possibly left of what is true is triviality. I made myself perfectly clear, I don*t want to challenge your intelligence by repeating my experiences. Just one thing, sinc<e you just have put it in doubt: The attitude to resign in a supposedly lost position in Europe is not restricted to masters or people with elo 2200. It is an attitude, it is common etiquette of the majority of ckubplayers, which involves people with rating from 1800 (DWZ or Elo) and above.

mandelshtam wrote:

now its my lack of brain powre hah? How far further will you get? and you say what is possibly left of what is true is triviality. I made myself perfectly clear, I don*t want to challenge your intelligence by repeating my experiences. Just one thing, sinc<e you just have put it in doubt: The attitude to resign in a supposedly lost position in Europe is not restricted to masters or people with elo 2200. It is an attitude, it is common etiquette of the majority of ckubplayers, which involves people with rating from 1800 (DWZ or Elo) and above.

Are you asserting that I questioned your brain power? If so, read my post number 190. If you can't understand what I said in that post, then I can't help you.

I don't think anything I have said is changed by your clarifying that you were referring to the opinion of players at 1800 and above and not just 2200 and above. How does this affect the statement that there is a difference between the way higher rated and lower rated players behave -- and should be expected to behave. Are you now claiming that people in the 1800 to 2199 range can be called lower rated players? Indeed, at one point I think I even made the distinction between GMs and "beginners." That's hardly "refuted" by the behavior of 1800+ players. It seems to me you are now just making things up to try to disagree with me, or create the appearance that I've said something stupid when I have not.

Let me be precisely clear: I do not believe that there is any universal code of behavior regarding resignation that is applicable to all players at all levels. Anyone who argues that all players should always resign or never resign are both mistaken because those "rules" are overinclusive.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?