iusegambits wrote:
chess2Knights wrote:
You walk over to TD. You need not speak to your opponent.
What is TD? Tournament Director?
Yep.
Rules re Asking for Resignation
Sort:
For another side of this debate for players rated over 2300 see "Chess Puzzle From A Real Game"
tubebender wrote: ponz in blue
Drawing on an analogy to sports, imagine a pro football team losing by 49 points with less than 2 minutes to play. One could argue that the losers should be allowed to resign and walk off the field instead of just making desperate efforts to make the loss closer. Worse yet, how about the winning team simply "freezing the ball" and killing the clock?
Actually that is not "Worse yet" it is done very often and expected.
How about in tennis one being down 6-0 6-0 5-0 and the losing side feeling exhausted and having no confidence to continue in a desparate hope to turn it around? Of course, games like football, basketball, soccer, ice hockey, etc., are expected to be played out to the last second. Yes, but freezing the ball in football is expected for various reasons.
In baseball and tennis (games that are "frame" constructed) one is supposed to play to the bitter end (In America, some recreational softball leagues have a "mercy rule" in which if the score has a certain differential after so many innings, the game is called a win for team that is ahead. This is done to minimize the "embarrasment" of the not as skilled team). In tennis exhaustion can make a difference. In a tournament once where we just had to play one set and it was about 110 degrees fahrenheit on court. I was ahead 5-0 in games and also 40 love for match point. I did not get my match point and eventually lost.
Often, in tennis, a player does often quit feining injury (which is hard to prove) when getting demolished. I have never seen this and it would be unsporting to fein injury.
Sort of like resigning in Chess, but not quite. Actually not such a good anology to chess.
Hopefully, this post will stimulate some thinking on this matter. Should we have computerized adjudications? Just a thought although I`m not in favor of it personally.
When there are adjudications the players are allowed to use computers in their analysis until they resume the actual game.
Sep 5, 2015
0
#185
@tubebender: Those sports analogies are not so apt. In American football, the winning team can "take a knee" to disable the losing team's chances.
Many years ago, when I was a child and just learning the rules of football, I was watching a game where my favorite team was losing late. I had hoped that they could possibly win in the last two minutes of the game, but the winning side ran out the clock instead. At first, I was furious, because I thought this was unfair and unsportsmanlike. I thought, "How could they allow something like that?" But I quickly realized that the practice is perfectly legal, because the winning team earns the right, by virtue of having the higher score, to run out the clock to finish off the losing team.
So this analogy is more apt to time pressure in Chess, not requesting resignation.
I cannot think of a professional sport in which the winning side, even in the extreme examples you gave, would ever ask the losing side to quit.
Sep 5, 2015
0
#186
whirlwind2011 wrote:
...
... While you would not break a rule by asking politely for a resignation, doing so would be considered so very monstrously rude that you should consider it unacceptable.
There's no way to politely ask an opponent to resign.
Sep 5, 2015
0
#187
whirlwind2011 wrote:
chess2Knights wrote:
...
@OP: This comment nails the answer to your question. While you would not break a rule by asking politely for a resignation, doing so would be considered so very monstrously rude that you should consider it unacceptable.
Yes, my comment was an ironic paradox (to which I alluded in a later comment). 
Sep 5, 2015
0
#188
Yeah, I got that. I was just emphasizing your point. I agree that there's no polite way to ask an opponent to resign.
Sep 5, 2015
0
#189
@SmyslovFan: Right. Someone could try to say otherwise. For example:
#1: "Could you please resign this game? I really do think I've won convincingly by now."
#2: "Would you just give up already? You're wasting my time!"
Someone could think that statement #1 is more polite than #2. Most would agree that both are simply not polite, because the premise of the question is rude. But do degrees of politeness exist?
Sep 5, 2015
0
#190
whirlwind2011 wrote:
... But do degrees of politeness exist?
We aren't talking about degrees of politeness, but degrees of rudeness. The reason to try to work out degrees of rudeness may be useful for the purpose of continuing the discussion.
But almost everyone in this thread agrees that asking an opponent to resign is rude. Period.
I have had countless cases of opponents who wouldn't resign until they are mated. What are they hoping for? That I am too stupid to mate them? That they'll manage to get a stalemate? Recently I have had very few stalemates. In the last few days I sacrificed a Queen to remove my opponent's last defence, a rook
If your opponent doesn't resign, turn all your pawns into knights or bishops and f%^*& him up!
When I'm with my friends playing blitz and the opponent clearly is lost, sometimes we will jokingly just pick up the opponents king and say, "Force resign!" lol
Sep 5, 2015
0
#194
Why are people so concerned about their opponents resigning? If they don't resign, then it's up to you to defeat them. I've continued on in games where I was down a piece and multiple pawns, and forced draws. You gain nothing by resigning.
imsighked2 wrote:
Why are people so concerned about their opponents resigning? If they don't resign, then it's up to you to defeat them. I've continued on in games where I was down a piece and multiple pawns, and forced draws. You gain nothing by resigning.
You do have lots to lose by not resigning...respect and time for example. There's a difference between being in a hopeless position and being down a couple pawns with coordinated pieces and attacking chances.
Sep 5, 2015
0
#196
PhantomCapablanca wrote:
If your opponent doesn't resign, turn all your pawns into knights or bishops and **** him up!
That, however, wastes one's own time. For someone who would be incensed about time lost playing a won game, that seems contradictory.
imsighked2 wrote:
What about being, for instance, - 22? You are hoping that your opponent is an idiot
Why are people so concerned about their opponents resigning? If they don't resign, then it's up to you to defeat them. I've continued on in games where I was down a piece and multiple pawns, and forced draws. You gain nothing by resigning.
Sep 5, 2015
0
#198
Again and again I hear people say that opponents should resign so as to not be disrespectful towards the opponent. And if this is in fact, disrespectful, then I really wonder why this form of disrespect is unacceptable while so many other forms of disrespect are tolerated in the world of chess.
It seems this subject gets talked about a great deal more than it actually happens.
When a person doesn't resign it is SIMPLY because they are hoping to find a way to win a competitive event. Why should "trying to win" be seen as disrespect? In the competitive world, respect is shown after the battle is over. But during the competition, respect could be a weakness.
YES! They are hoping you will blunder! YES! They are hoping for a stalemate! YES! They might even be doing it for spite! YES! They are hoping you are an idiot! But they are playing by the rules.
Now and then you just gotta prove, "ON THE BOARD", that you are as good as you think you are. Is it really so terrible to be forced to play a chess game to it's completion?
The greatest blunder in chess is to resign when you might have got a draw or even missed a winning move.
If Kramnik can overlook a mate in 1, then anyone rated lower than him can miss it too.
Sep 5, 2015
0
#199
wormrose wrote:
...
When a person doesn't resign it is SIMPLY because they are hoping to find a way to win a competitive event. Why should "trying to win" be seen as disrespect? In the competitive world, respect is shown after the battle is over. But during the competition, respect could be a weakness.
YES! They are hoping you will blunder! YES! They are hoping for a stalemate! YES! They might even be doing it for spite! YES! They are hoping you are an idiot! But they are playing by the rules.
Now and then you just gotta prove, "ON THE BOARD", that you are as good as you think you are. ...
@wormrose: That was very nicely put. I especially liked these parts.
Sep 5, 2015
0
#200
ECF three phrases allowed in chess
i adjust (je doube)(soz if spelt wrong)
checkmate
draw , only if ahead or equal on material
any other , could forfeit , thats otb
online chess differs , ie chat is acceptable ish
my advice dont ask your opponent to resign , just force them to by playing the win game
You walk over to TD. You need not speak to your opponent.
What is TD? Tournament Director?