There is no ethics in chess?

Chess is a street fight

The NM was down on time and offered a draw in a clearly a drawn endgame, but his opponent declined and won on time. Pretty sure his WTFudge comment was due to the decline of the draw - but I could be wrong.

Actually I trained in Yoshinkan Aikido, Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, and Hombu Aikido.  Plus a little judo, shotokan and American boxing to fill in gaps. I agree that Hombu is kinda fruity dance stuff- but as you say aikijujutsu and yoshinkan are nothing to mess around with.  I used to really be into the whole bushido thing when I was a teen.  Then I realized it made as much sense for me to be a "real" samurai as it did for a modern japanese teen to be a real "civil war confederate calvaryman."  So then I turned to using martial arts as a way to make friends, stay in shape, and protect myself rather than be Mississippi Musashi.  ;)

But I find chess to use the exact same part of my mind as martial arts do.

I lost on Sunday in a dead drawn position when my opponent wouldn't take a draw.  I don't begrude him for it.  I had less time on the clock & he was up a pawn.  Granted it was opposite bishops but there was a lot of room for tactical error & I feel into one & lost.

The clock is part of the game.  If my opponent doesn't want to resign or take a draw that's his choice.  In the case of not resigning it's good practice to practice winning a won game, if he won't take a draw, well I have to be careful & hope to survive to punish him & perhaps even devlop winning chances.

In online chess I usually resign if I'd dead lost & accept draws in drawn positions as I view it as practice but with $50 on the line in a Quad I'm certainly not going to be so amicable.

great example; if you can handicap your opponent time wise early good.  If you find yourself in a drawish position later in that game there is no shame in making delibrately mindbending moves to work the clock.  That's chess.  It's the patzers that are down sufficient material, or have clearly hopleless endgames and still feel the need to fight on.  Especially annoying when they tried an off opening and got beat for it then won't let it go...  This is chess, not life.  That chinese guy in the courtroom who jumps up and graps the flagpole subsequently kicking 12 peoples asses and flee'ing is simply not going to happen, in chess.  

If you have tactics or are just down a piece and pawn Im not saying by any means to resign it's those rare games where all is clearly lost personally I could do without the 24 move excersise.  By most standards im a rank ametuer, and mostly I don't begrudge someone for making close the game with mate or a move or two away from it.  I can however think of a few games where personally I feel resigning was the only correct move.

Like I said, if a guy won't resign it's good practice to try to finish him off as efficiently as possible.

I definitely agree with you. What I find interesting in this discussion is not to have the right answer. I do not think there is a right answer to this issue, I rather I think there maybe several answers.

One of the things which is interesting in chess is the psychological aspect of the game and the reactions that this generates.

It is said that the great Stanley Kubrick would use chess to learn more about who he was dealing with. But he certainly did not play online at his times :-).

I would like to point out that playing online and OTT are two completely different phenomena. Many of the attitudes and ways of doing / playing online that happens during a game, do not happen if you have the chance to look into the eyes of your opponent,... why?

I think it is useful to reflect a bit 'on these things today that we live in an age of virtual reality to better understand what it can offer and what it might take us away, from a human standpoint.  Finally I want to mention (with much displeasure) Lance Armstrong as an example that everyone knows. To desire to win at any cost sometimes may not be the right solution isn't it?

"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battle" Siddarta the Buddah

PS

Of course you could add that chess is played at different levels of understanding, dynamics and competition. I remember (I quote from memory) a beautiful phrase in an interview with WGM Natalia Pogonina quoting Bobby Fischer  in which she said: "I do not play to humiliate anyone, when you have reached an interesting position in a game that is all"  Certainly a very zen statement indeed, but to me personally, this represent the spirit of chess that I love most 

jbskaggs Thanks I think we share the same "vision" but I also like to thanks everyone for his/her contribution for taking part in this discussion 

Shin Shin Toitsu, for a short period. The emphasis on ki was not appealing at first, but in time I grew to appreciate it.