Rules re Asking for Resignation

Players who play on in ridiculously lost positions are themselves being rude and deserve whatever response their rudeness may provoke from their annoyed opponent .  The truth is that good players know when they should resign and they do .  Some children , some beginners and most jerks refuse to resign even when they should . 

You don't learn anything being mated king and queen vs king. If you do, spend 5 minutes and learn it. You're wasting everyones time. If people resigned and spent the next few minutes studying, they'd learn a lot more than they do shuffling their king while their opponent promotes pawns.

Really a good advice

That depends on who "you" are. For adults, I agree.

For eight year old beginners, they should never resign.

In blitz, it depends on the clock. I have stalemated and been stalemated in such endings.

To stalemate another player when I've been able to perform this feat OTB in less than eight seconds is embarrassing, but I've done it nonetheless. I could blame premove, or blame the bourbon. The fault is mine.

Then perhaps 8 yo beginners shouldnt be playing in Open adult tournies ?  They have many options , adults do not . Is an 8 yo A class player still a " beginner " ?  What about an 8 yo that started tournies at age 6 ?  Does " beginner " have to do with age , experience , strength ?  It seems there are differing definitions for " beginner " . 

I agree.

I think almost everyone below 1200-1400 is a beginner no matter how long they have been playing, but it is a sliding scale. Some youth players who play only in youth events may be below that rating and yet I no longer consider them beginners.

I do not encourage youth rated below 1400 to play in open adult tournaments. 

As I acknowledged in another post above, there would be little to gain by playing on with a king vs a queen + king for all but beginners. However, this is just one scenario in which a player might potentially resign and a rather extreme one.

For beginning to mid level players, it would not at all be advisable to resign from the same kind of situations that top level players might resign from. They still have too much to learn and they are throwing away valuable playing experience.

Note that it's not necessarily doing the "winning" player any favours either, if they are at a similar level. Many learners struggle to successfully conclude a game of chess from a "winning" position. If their opponents resign too early then they will not learn how to conclude an end game properly.

Again, at the top level, in professional tournaments, expectations might be different. But it should be stressed that most of us playing on this site are not top level players and not competing professionally. I certainly don't feel obligated to resign merely because my opponent is impatient and can't be bothered playing out the end game! I'd rather play on and see how things pan out, although that said I will resign if I feel the situation has become hopeless and / or there's nothing further for me to learn.

What is your age and otb rating ?  

I don't have an OTB rating as I do not play tournament chess. I'm not going to tell you my age, but let's just say that it's a long time since I got carded in a bar :-).

So , basically you " don't have a dog in this hunt " then . 

Actually, the topic does not refer specifically to tournament chess. On the contrary, the original post referred to behaviour on this site specifically.

As I have already acknowledged on several occasions in this thread, expectations may well be different among tournament players competing at a professional level. However, that is not the level the majority of people on this site are competing at; nor, indeed, the level of most of the people commenting in this thread.

WillResignForBeer wrote:

The only thing you can be sure of, is asking your opponent to resign will lead to them resigning much later than they otherwise would have done, if they would indeed even resign at all after you decided to ask them.

I agree.

Glad to see someone with a master title agreeing with me here.  There's no sport, sportsmanship, or point in dragging out a lost game.  To those who say, "But I might learn something!", a better use of your time would be learning how you got into such a bad spot to begin with, so you could avoid that in the future!

Robert, you're not making any sense.  We're not talking about "winning" positions, we're talking about "WON" positions.  K + Q v. K isn't a winning position.  It's a won position.  The other side has no chance of victory, and continuing to play on is spitting in the face of the winner.  If I insult them for it and they learn, great.  If they never forget it, that's ok.  If they never play in another tournament again, no big loss.  Learn to play the game, and play the game the way it's meant to be played.  Boxing referees stop a fight before one side dies.  In chess you need to be your own referee.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=103474268  Check out this game of mine.  This game went on 17 moves too long minimum.  That's 3 weeks of extra playing in a game that I was clearly never in jeopardy of losing or drawing.  My other game against this player went the same way.  It's insulting.

Its MOST annoying in OTB games/events where you often have little time between rounds ,  when it happens online it doesnt bother me as much ... 

I understand opponents taking a lot of time, when the game is completely lost.  It's a psychological game, and just as in when making sure a move is good, despite having taken a long time with a candidate move that you've already made your mind up on, people need time to come to psychological grips that they've had their backside handed to them.

I just keep a tactics book or novel on hand while I play and accept that it is part of the game.  Sometimes, though, I sadistically imagine the anguish the person might be in, and imagine the person cussing at their computer screen like a goof.  In USCF games, I don't need a book, I just enjoy the expression on my opponents face.  Fischer had it right, as to what the best part of the game is: when you crush them, when they see it coming, at that moment of realization...

Miss Manners would love this thread!

Apparently many chess players believe they have a license to be rude if they think their opponent is being rude.

One thing that nobody has mentioned is the time factor. I won't resign even K vs K+Q if my opponent has less than 5 seconds left. If the game is a correspondence game, then even beginners should consider resigning.

Still, there is no circumstance where you're playing a rated game and it's ok to suggest a move to your opponent. Resigning is a move.

Not quite nobody, but easy to overlook.

I agree with the rest.

I am disappointed that a number of players--including some titled players, who should arguably be held to a higher standard of etiquette--have espoused this view. Intentional rudeness is inexcusable, whether spontaneous or retaliatory.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's YOUR etiquette that needs to be changed around?  If I'm insulting a player the entire game, and they know it's bothering me that they don't resign, I'd expect them to hang on just to annoy me.  Heck, I once came in for a round at my club, made one move and then left just to force my opponent to wait around until I ran out of time (he had cheated and then threatened to beat me up when I caught him the last time we played.  I was his first game back after a yearlong suspension).  

I'm perfectly polite and respectful to my opponents.  I won't ever throw the first punch, so to speak.  Once they step over the line and offend me, however, all bets are off.  It's the way the world works.  Whether it's malice or ignorance, people who drag out lost positions are incredibly rude, and deserve nothing less than the highest level of contempt possible.