This is simply not okay behaviour. 😤

Hey all, had a very unfortunate experience playing blitz the other day.

I’m aware resigning in losing positions is a courtesy, and I do so often. Sometimes, though, particularly in short time controls, I exercise my right to play till checkmate. I lose nothing by doing so, and it forces my opponent to demonstrate the technique, and if there are enough pieces remaining there are occasionally stalemate opportunities, or time-out draws.

My opponent, however, clearly didn’t take it well. Instead, he decided to prolong the game to FOUR HUNDRED MOVES by doing laps of the board with his king and just occasionally pushing one of his remaining pawns to reset the 50move rule and avoid repeating the position.

I was never going to resign in the face of such obvious trolling, as there was every chance he’d mess up his showboating. He didn’t, in the end, but surely there must be some way of reporting this sort of behaviour?

If nothing else, it would be a potential method for someone playing unfairly to mask use of external help (note, I don’t think this is the case here) as the constant “misses” where they could have delivered checkmate would tank the accuracy of a game and avoid some suspicion….

Either way, it’s definitely poor sportsmanship. If someone chooses not to resign against me, I treat it like a challenge and find the most efficient way to mate them if I can. This isn’t right. 

Also, it makes game review give up while running its programme, which means I can’t even learn from the loss!

Do other people agree? Or do you think I was ruder by not resigning?

Just resign then, bro

Why? I’d already prepared for the loss at that stage, my opponent’s showboating only provides opportunity for him to mess up and blunder a draw in one way or another, which would be an excellent result for me. I’ve got nothing to lose by playing on.

Then why all the complaining?

Just report this person. It's completely wrong to do this.

And you're right on not resigning. Now you can prove that what he did is just illegal, anywone can see it, based in the 400 moves you guys played.

Bad sportsmanship, that's all. It doesn't violate any rules, does it?"

I kinda disagree. Hikaru does such things as well sometimes.

But way more important, you can resign at every time. Your opponent is not manipulating this rating or the game without only using his own pure skills.

Since the only expactable result is you loosing anyway, there is no point in playing on. Therefore there is no shame if some might feel disrespected. In that case do you have a right to feel disrespected as well when they play on against you with reversed colors. And not only this, you also have the right of feeling disrespected when they make some kind like underpromotions and then checkmate you with 8 knights or whatever.

But how can you say it’s wrong? Playing on in a relatively hopelessly lost position can also be viewed as wrong. But this is still allowed, even though it’s the same kind of behavior (Wasting time, making the game longer than necessary, etc.) So why is the one thing allowed and the other not?

Where’s the difference?

Indeed

Well this is my question, to an extent. I personally believe there’s a distinction: the player who’s “not resigning” is doing so in the hope that the person who’s winning will slip up and stalemate, or accidentally repeat the position, or run out of time, or simply doesn’t know how to checkmate. So that person is playing on in the hope of a different result.

The person who’s refusing to checkmate, however, is doing it purely to troll and annoy the opponent. That’s worse sportsmanship in my view - they gain nothing for playing on, whereas they might make a silly mistake and change the outcome of the game.

peak ragebait be like

I agree, this behavior is not sportsmanship. I also don’t resign and try my opponent to stalemate.

I’d just report and pass

same here

At the expert level, it is very unlikely for that to happen. Therefore questioning the conversion technique of winning positions, the practical experience (Like handeling time pressure, intuitively finding quick checkmates and precisely playing out moves with their mouse) or even the ability to checkmate of an expert-level or a strong advanced player is irrational. Playing on against someone significantly weaker is at least understandable, as long as you follow the general saying in chess. In case you don’t know:

There is a general kind of unofficial rule or saying in chess:

If your opponent is clearly ahead and winning, (especially in material), then you should ask yourself: Would I win this game with reversed colors (With the side of your opponent) against Magnus Carlsen or against Stockfish? If yes, you should resign. If you believe that you might not win the position yourself, you should consider to play on.

I understand the point that playing on (As the winning side) has a risk which the loosing side can’t have. But you have one risk: If you play on, you do one of two things:

1. The expected result happened and you lost. You wasted your and your opponent’s time and energy. Of course we have to separate from a clearly, obviously lost position and a relatively loosing position which still offers some opportunities, resources, chances, counterplay and room for mistakes. We are talking about the clearly loosing positions that don’t require very accurate conversion techniques.

2. The expected result didn’t happened and you won or drew in a very unfortunate, unlucky way and eventually ruined the day of your opponent just to save a few rating points. I personally wouldn’t even be happy with this situation because I know I should’ve lost and the process wouldn’t satisfy me. Like, if you draw or win in a hopeless position, you can’t really be proud of yourself and your skills, can you? It should feel underserved.

In terms of "They gain nothing from playing on": Well, they do kind of. They gain a psychological victory of counter-disrespecting or checkmating in a fancy, unique, unnatural way. Of course it’s a topic we can talk all day long… But opinions matter.

What was that game

I’m aware of the etiquette of resigning, and do so often. In shorter time controls, I’m less inclined to do so. You’d be surprised how often even at my relatively high level (by this platform’s standpoint, at least) stalemates occur in completely winning positions.

It’s blitz chess. The games should take no more than 8-10 minutes at 3+2, so the amount of time I “waste” by not resigning is worth the potential saved rating. 

Also, as a side point, I personally enjoy delivering checkmate and sometimes get annoyed if someone resigns right before I was going to deliver the final blow: you can’t please everyone in your resigning habits, I suppose.

There's no rule that limits the amount of moves in a game. Just bad sportmanship, has you said, but I think it's some kind of trolling, and chess.com does not allow these kind of things.

Yes, behavior of OP's opponent was rude. On the hand, it takes two people to play a 400+ move game. I would have just resigned ... why let someone troll me for hundreds of moves on the microscopic chance of a draw? I have better uses for my time.