It was a blitz game on Market Street in San Francisco, so I didn't get too worked up over it.
Showing people to resign in a hopeless game
Sort:
Aug 17, 2010
0
#63
orangehonda wrote:
ChessDweeb wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Not to belabor the point, but it's the whole concept of 'sportsmanship' all about how you play within the confines of the rules? I don't think that sportsmanship is defined as 'not cheating'.
Hey OZ, I know we've seen this thread a million times before. It's always worth a comment or two.
–noun
1.
the character, practice, or skill of a sportsman.
2.
sportsmanlike conduct, as fairness, courtesy, being a cheerful loser, etc.
You can't call into account somebody's CHARACTER because he/she follows the rules as a matter of PRACTICE.
When the flag drops, and I lose I will be COURTEOUS and a CHEERFUL LOSER. Until then, in all FAIRNESS the rules allow me every opportunity to continue.
: )
Posting dictionary definitions for words we all already know is a way to make your argument seem less logically based and more semantically based even if your points are good.
As you say, fairness is part of being a good sportsman. When a scholastic kid plays all the way till mate, I don't get mad, because it's within the rules and is fair.
Non-beginner adults though have completely different reasons for playing till mate in hopeless positions, in these cases their intent makes it poor sportsmanship by way of bad character. It's basically the same thing as being a poor loser.
-----------
Whether you agree with it or not, (and especially whether it's in the rules or not) you should understand there are unwritten standards of conduct that come about by the existence of communities. Even if you don't understand such standards, if you are aware it's considered rude, you're being a poor sportsman by trying to hide behind the rules and behaving that way regardless.
The only exception, as I've said, is a beginner or scholastic player who needs to experience the technique or truly doesn't see that the position is lost (or perhaps is playing a <1000 rated player where material isn't much of an advantage).
Hi ORANGEHONDA,
I have to clarify something. I am looking at playing speed chess. I never resign. On turn based when it's hopeless, I will.
However, I've had people that were lost take a month making useless moves. I take solice in the fact that I know I will eventually get my points.
Either way. If people resign or not it doesn't bother me. That's what the time control is there for.
Who keeps reviving all these long-dead "resign" threads?
I had a game once, which was played for money, with a clock, where the guy just declared a draw himself, got up, and left.
I think I had something like Rook and 4 pawns to rook and 3 pawns, and at the time I was shuffling pieces around waiting for him to make a mistake. In the meantime I was trying to come up with a plan if he didn't make a mistake.
I did not see the "stand up and leave" defense coming, I must say.
Heh, what a sore loser... that how to play those endgames that are technically drawn but obviously offer one side practical chances.
I mean, if you were shuffling for like 30 moves over the course of an hour I'd get mad... but this guy, how pathetic.