There is absolutely nothing unsportsmanlike about resigning when your position is dead lost.
In fact, the prevailing opinion is exactly the opposite... that it's somewhat unsportsmanlike to pointlessly drag out a game that you are clearly going to lose.
There is absolutely nothing unsportsmanlike about resigning when your position is dead lost.
In fact, the prevailing opinion is exactly the opposite... that it's somewhat unsportsmanlike to pointlessly drag out a game that you are clearly going to lose.
Fair enough. I definitely agree with that.
When your opponent drags out a game/ stalls it is quite time wasting and annoying.
However, I think resigning a move before you checkmate them is a bit weak, because you didn't technically 'checkmate them', they resigned.
Among the best (and most respected) players on Earth, it is almost unheard-of to play out to mate. If they see an unavoidable mate coming, they resign.
Your focus on "checkmating them" instead of seeing them resign is a purely personal issue, which has no connection at all to the accepted modes of courteous behavior in chess.
My latest game, actually. I sacrificed my queen (taking it was forced), and would have the choice to deliver mate with either knight or rook the next move. My opponent resigned. No problem.
Generally I agree but there are exceptions; particularly in short games like blitz if your opponent has used a disproportionate amount of time to gain a winning position and is likely to deliver mate it seems reasonable to me to keep playing to see if mate can be delivered before he or she runs out of time. Then when it becomes clear that this will happen - even if only a move before checkmate, I think it is ok to resign. The worst thing is someone stalling in a lost position, then coming back with seconds on their clock to make a move just in case you have stopped watching the game.
Everyone recognises bad sportsmanship. In daily games they play quickly when they're winning. If things go wrong they start taking ages over straightforward moves. One move from being back rank mated they quickly resign before they can be checkmate. Others keep demanding rematches when they've been beaten several times.
Have you ever had anyone do this to you?
It's happened to me, and personally, I think it's quite unsportsmanlike.
What do you think?
I feel like it is gentlemen to allow my opponent to mate, that I am doing my opponent a favor to play to a quick mate, but I don't consider it unsportsmanlike to resign in a lost position.
So, I feel playing to mate is something you should do, but aren't require to do.
Have you ever had anyone do this to you?
It's happened to me, and personally, I think it's quite unsportsmanlike.
What do you think?
its a funny villain move, makes them look cool but in a in a stylish way
This is a game for ladies and gentlemen. It isn't football, where one team can run the score up 50-0; it's chess, a game of kings. If one side is grossly down, it is considered good manners for the losing side to resign gracefully. Its basically a way of saying "I know you can win this, I'm going to save you the trouble of actually doing it."
Look at world championship games throughout the years. There isn't a single game I can recall that was decided by checkmate; not one. Karpov didn't make Kasparov mate him; he understood when the game was lost and did what any good gentleman does: he resigned. And Kasparov did exactly the same thing when the roles were reversed. Why? Because they are gentlemen at the top of the most refined and difficult sport of the 20th century.
Fischer/Spassky? Not one game decided by checkmate. Yet players on here treat resignation as despicable. It's quite the opposite: it's how players of a certain caliber play the game.
It's sportsmanlike to resign out of a unavoidable forced checkmates
.