Resignation
Sort:
thanx lanceuppercut_293, I understand exactly what you have written about. I think this issue is one of personality. If I was given the situation where my opponet had just a King, and I had all the other pieces, I would have a smile on my face while saying that little SOB. I would play the game out without reservation. It is proper sportsmanship to resign when all is lost, but when forced to play out an obvious ending, what harm is really being done to make one become angry or so frustrated. One can always not play that person anymore. Is it really so bad? I dont think so. Again, I think its a personality thing. Some people get road rage easily, some dont. I would think that higher rated players would understand that lower rated players have a lower rating for a reason. I have a lot of respect for higher rated players, and I personally would resign happily without playing to the end, because of that respect, but, I have also played flat out begginers. I know to have patience, and am happy to let a game run its course. I am not offended if they do not resign. If I was inclined to become frustrated with flat out begginers, I would not play them. But just as a side note, I will not play golf with flat out beginners, they must go to the driving range first.
b-sheers> It is proper sportsmanship to resign when all is lost, but when forced to play out an obvious ending, what harm is really being done
If they play it out at a reasonable speed, none in my mind. But if they delay or play slowly then in a chess.com tournament they are holding up the beginning of the next round for dozens or hundreds of players. In an in-person tourney, they are reducing the time you have between rounds which is critical for resting, exercising, eating, etc. So there is some actual harm to others beyond the mere annoyance.
eternal21 wrote: Reb wrote: eternal21 wrote: fostergump wrote:
It's kinda like when someone in front of you is driving really slow....the more you tailgate the slower they get. Its the one tailgating that is agrivated not the guy going the speed limit....yes its the speed limit, and you dont have to go over it. These are the laws of the road...They have every right to drive that way. If you don't like it then stay home!
No they don't. Left lane is for passing, right lane is for driving. Hijacking a lane (which is #1 reason for traffic jams forming on highways) is illegal. If they don't like it, they can always take a bus.
??? Arent there minimum speed limits when there are 2 or more lanes? I think as long as the person is not driving under the minimum speed limit they are doing nothing wrong. If there is a passing lane then pass when you safely can. If there is no minimum speed limit the same applies.
I live in the U.S. - the highway capital of the world. Though rarely enforced (which is too bad - it would certainly get a lot of clowns off the roads) - it is illegal to drive in the left lane blocking traffic behind you, regardless of how fast/slow you are going. Properly it should only be used for passing. Besides, I have yet to have a cop pull me over when I'm driving 10-15 mph over the speed limit. It's built into the system.
I am speaking of driving between the minimum posted speed limit and the actual speed limit in the right lane. The left lane (extreme) is supposed to be used by emergency vehicles and for passing purposes only, unless the laws have changed since I moved to Europe. I am not talking about driving under the speed limit in the passing lane. Is the minimum speed limit on US interstates still 40mph or has it changed? I have a friend that actually got a "slowing ticket" for going under the minimum speed limit on an interstate. 
My word, I certainly seem to have touched a nerve. Could it be that those who are anti-resignation in a hopeless position feel just a bit annoyed? Could they be the same people who play on regardless? If so good, now you know how it feels.
Given that people agree that it's perfectly ok to drive the minimum speed (40 mph on most interstates) in the right hand lane and pass in the left lane. Is it ok to go 45 in the left lane while I am passing someone in the right lane?
Loomis wrote: Given that people agree that it's perfectly ok to drive the minimum speed (40 mph on most interstates) in the right hand lane and pass in the left lane. Is it ok to go 45 in the left lane while I am passing someone in the right lane?
I would think so loomis, I dont see why not.
Jul 8, 2008
0
#69
lanceuppercut_239 - I understand your point. I just suggest moderation in being upset or insulted. Just as we need a balance between thinking time and playing speed, our emotions need a governor. I used to use as a stress reducer the following, "The wise learn more from fools than fools learn from the wise."
hmm i think driving at 40 on a motorway with the traffic doing 70-80 is far more likely to cause an accident than driving at 100. Overtaking a 60 at 65 thus doing (shock horror!) under the speed limit while overtaking would be fine though, which i think was your point.
(Maybe interstates are different though, if they're longer, straighter and emptier than motorways and you hardly see another car for miles on end then it becomes much less important what speed you're doing anyway)
Jul 8, 2008
0
#71
One interesting way to deal with intenational slow players in hopeless positions is to use the conditional move feature. If you are a premium player, you can enter in several conditional lines; I find that this often has the effect of convincing the opponent that resistence is futile. :-)
But even if it doesn't work that way, it removes the game from your list for awhile.
Great but you willdo whene you had the game losses sure
I think he means we'd overtake someone at below the speed limit if we're guaranteed to lose the game.
fostergump wrote:
It's kinda like when someone in front of you is driving really slow....the more you tailgate the slower they get. Its the one tailgating that is agrivated not the guy going the speed limit....yes its the speed limit, and you dont have to go over it. These are the laws of the road...They have every right to drive that way. If you don't like it then stay home!
to go further on the only one party is annoyed concept...
i sometimes enjoy slowing down for tailgaters and those people i see weaving fast through traffic in my rear view mirror. i am not nice at all with them. But, i don't confront or make eye contact, and try to keep up the facade that i'm just minding my own business. if you slow down too much or too soon, it is obvious that you are messing with them. no, no, no... you see... that provides a tension relief, and relief is bad when you're messing with people in a hurry. you don't want to mess with a cell-phone either.
Example: two-lane traffic - give gas and ease up (never ever brake, unless going downwhill. pumping the brakes in the middle of downhill curves and coasting straightaways is a nice touch). try to fluctuate around the speed limit... the goal is to vary between -3 mph and +5 mph over. (in USA +10 over is generally speeding ticket land) Trust me, this is annoying.
Example: highway - get over to the left lane to pass the next car and really just drag it out so that your making just inches of progress overtaking. no braking. just a gradual fight to overtake. Once you finally get pass the car, hit the turn signal so that the tailgater doesn't make a weave move. continue gradually giving more space until you can finally get over. When the car finally passes you, work the radio.
I've only been miffed once on chess.com about resigning. I know when a position is lost and will resign so as not to insult the intelligence of my opponent. However, in this particular game I made a catastrophic blunder and threw it away. Shortly afterwards the guy in question posted the demand 'RESIGN' Needless to say I played on for a few more moves just to irritate him.
My maxim on resignation is, resign against a better or equally strong player when its obvious all is lost but If you have blundered against a weaker player, fight on something may happen to turn the game around.
Jul 9, 2008
0
#77
Reb wrote: Imagine one of us playing on a queen down against a titled player, and our opponent is NOT in danger of losing on time. Anyone who thinks its NOT an insult to the titled player to continue the game is a few fries short of a happy meal. I am playing just such a game now in which I have the extra queen and my low rated opponent refuses to resign. I AM insulted. What can I do about it? Nothing except to never play this person again.
maybe that player is enjoying playing a master and wants to see how you finish him off for learning purposes.we are not as good as you and want to learn,
I quite agree about time trouble, and would never take offence if that was the case. However to play on in a hopeless position (which I tried to make clear in my original post) is usually to try to spite your opponent. Anyone who plays chess, whether adult or child, should display common courtesy to everyone they play, whether titled or not. Particularly in blitz, which is, frankly, just a bit of fun. You win or lose and you move on to the next game.
My point is that some people are so bitter about losing that they will try any tactic to annoy their opponent, even sitting while their time runs out. Get a life! It's only a game. And winning a game of chess doesn't mean that you're intelligent or a better person. It just means that you've got a talent for chess - a totally useless, albeit entertaining, activity.
Well said Chawil. For a while this thread was beginning to resemble the american civil war reinactment society
GreenLaser's posts in this thread contain insightful and thoughtful information as usual. One point I'd like to clarify though:
GreenLaser wrote: In the diagram given by lanceuppercut_239 it is mate in 3. Is it such a problem to complete the game?
I don't think it is a problem to complete the game. The reason I made up such an extreme example is to emphasize the point that the game is clearly won by white.
There's a difference between a position being "losing" and being "lost". It seems to me that masters recognize a position which is "lost" much earlier than amateurs do. In the diagram I posted if a complete beginner is playing Black, he could think, "my opponent could still stalemate me if he makes a mistake. I'll keep playing." A more experienced (yet still amateur) player might play on in a lost position for a similarly silly reason; they just don't realize that their position is lost, or they hope for their opponent to slip up.