The etiquette of resigning

Btw, I never tell nor ask for resign. Instead, I do compose a mask of indifference and wait patiently for the unavoidable win.

(if it's a child, I don't mind: childish behaviour do belong to children).

A topic that has been discussed countless times.

As far as I'm concerned, I always resign because when I'm down a lot I know that I can only recover thanks to a resounding blunder by the opponent, and this makes me lose interest. However, it doesn't shock me or bother me at all if the losing opponent keeps playing until he gets the checkmate. That's his business. It's a game, and he can live it as he pleases. Seriously, frivolously, as a simulation of a war, as a sport, as a pastime, or whatever he wants, depending on how he sees the game of chess.

Everyone has their own motivations when they play chess. What matters is to play fairly, and not to cheat. I would add, it would be nice to acknowledge the defeat by congratulating the opponent, at least formally, as a courteous gesture at the end of the game ( which, according to the rules, ends with the checkmate ). Otherwise, a chess move is just a chess move, nothing more. Personally, I don't attach any additional meaning to what one does on the chessboard with his pieces.

My opinion is that the resignation option is there for the player who wants to resign. It has nothing to do with sportsmanship. You do not resign out of respect or because you believe it is what the etiquette dictates. The only reason for resigning should be: I see no point in continuing playing. Then you resign, because why would you do something that is pointless?

When does it become pointless? That depends on a lot of things.

It's nice an opinion and surely valid for the Internet games. In real life, the opinion of an individual matters not compared to the (vague) consensus that does prevail among chess competitors: to resign when should, is sportmanship.

That's not a consensus. It may be your own view for what the consensus ought to be, and you are welcome to hold that view. But the range of opinion in this thread makes it quite clear that calling it a consensus is simply untrue.

The context I mentioned is real life competition and clubs. I do compete in real life for nearly 40 years, and what I'm saying is true. Internet is a ghost that has little grip (if any) over reallity for such matters.

Every newcommer from the Internet chess will be surrounded by real life chess competitors who all despise players who won't resign when it's only obvious they should: guess what then happen: the newcommer adjust their view or quit.

I'll add, until you play chess in real life tournaments (aka OTB), you're just nowhere. You don't exist to the World of Chess. Hence, your opinion only matters on Internet websites, not on the carpet of the tournament hall.

I too have played for years at different local clubs. So have many who post here. Your characterization of other people's opinions is not consistent with what I've experienced.

I think your own zeal on this pont may blind you to the many others who don't particularly care.

Yes it is and matches what I see of what top players do when broadcasted. You're only in denial. I also played in the UK and in Russia, it's the same everywhere.

I also compete OTB: in my club, in regional and national competitions and some occasional international tournaments. And while I will concede that there's some sentiment similar to yours in OTB scene, it is not as universal as you want us to believe.

There are a few kids in our club who always play until a checkmate. They are not ostracized or reproached. Same in tournaments outside of the chess club. There's way more understanding for young players not resigning than you make it out to be.

Kids are kids, and are entitled to kids behaviour, as I mentioned earlier.

See #165

You said local clubs, not top players. 2100s and 1800s and 1200s and 900s are different from 2700s, as well as from each other. (But not so different -- not even top players resign because of "etiquette." They resign when it's not worth it to them to play on.)

I don't know what it is you play in your local clubs, and if you guys in the USA find it acceptable to keep up a totally lost game in classical official competition when there is no zeitnot and nothing to hope for, that's only one more flaw in the local culture.

Rules and sportmanship are the same from 1400 to 3000+ Elo. Nothing ever changes on that front.

I personally don't resign, and funnily enough the only time people only seem to get angry about it is online. When playing in person it almost never bothers people when I play on in a dead lost position.

Dude, of the *many* things wrong with American culture, that's gotta be the least of them.

Some people sure do get worked up over having to play more moves in a game they claim to love.

@#178 Yeah, but you play bullet, don't you? What has that got to do with anything? Or chess?

#179 One must be silly to "love" a game...

I don't know, you brought it up.

Nothing?

I did not bring up resigning within bullet games. What's wrong with your imagination?

Nowhere in my post did I mention bullet. In fact the opposite:

"I personally don't resign" implies all time controls and "in person" implies OTB, so unlikely to be bullet.

You were the only person to mention bullet.