Your Opponent Won't Resign Be Creative!

Do you see supergrand masters playing out a game to mate?  They know what is excess in their sphere.

And, of course there are billions of dead lost positions. When I was 8 years old I could win with king and queen vs lone king and then king and rook vs lone king and that was way back.  I do not really think a 1400 rated player is weaker than I was, a novice, when I was age 8. If they think they can "learn" from playing out a king and queen vs king endgame then they are not really 1400 strength.

That's probably what I would do if I were to play out a stupid position -- just leaf through it real fast to be as sure as I desire. I simply get that desire to be as sure as possible -- nobody should have to be uncertain about a position when they resign, and playing on helps for that closure.

Ok, now I'm just being difficult, but it could be argued that you can learn more about piece coordination by finding efficient ways to win with queen vs king . Sort of like your "creativity" idea -- to figure out the fastest way to win that position might require you to think better and have more resources than simply finding a way to win. Maybe you'll learn how to use your queen with more precision!

only lower rated players do that. I can win with a queen easily! 

Elibus here is what you said after I mentioned a situation where an opponent delibertly disrupts a tournament or a game by playing on to the final move [often out of spite] then he certainly deserves the lable "inconsiderate" and deserves no respect"

You argued against this by saying "You simply state he is inconsiderate--that is the argument"  [no, me just simply saying he is inconsiderate is not the whole argument as I gave a specific situation when I thought somebody would be inconsiderate] Then you say "Your mind is already made up."  "You mention an instance when a person doesn't resign, and simply say its disrespectful" [no, that is not what I did--I did not just simply say it's disrespectful--I gave a specific situation first--by the way when a person does this it will or can affect all the players in a small tournament as they may not know who won or came in 2nd or 3rd for maybe a year later because of the spiteful actions of one player] " then you give a sentence which I do not know what it means "You can only assert that you pre-suspose that not resigning is disrespectful" [I do not assert that I pre suspose that not resigning is disresptful]

In actual fact, I have shown that in more than 40 years of correspondence play there was not even one instance where I pre-susposed that not resigning was disrespectful. So my track record very much indicates that I DO NOT pre-suspose that someone not resigning is disrespectful. You are putting a "pre-suspose" on me which I never have done in 40 years of correspondece play. What actually happens is I do not pre-suspose anything and wait until something happens and then [and not until then] do I make a determination about bad sportsmanship.  

I may have forgotten an if -- "You can only assert that if you pre-suppose that not resigning is disrespectful"

"as they may not know who won or came in 2nd or 3rd for maybe a year later because of the spiteful actions of one player"

Maybe my specific quote was flawed -- but I mean that your underlying logic is based on assumptions. For example, "spiteful" -- if the action was actually spiteful, I agree with you. The problem is, I'm not willing to assume that it must be spiteful (if you are talking about not resigning). It of course could be, but it doesn't have to be. I took it that you are saying that not resigning is an act of spite if the position is too lost. If this is not the case I apologize -- I must have misunderstood your comment then.

Of course the tournament will be delayed if the game doesn't end. I don't see the problem. Tournaments end when they end, when everyone either finished or quit their games.

Let's get more specific: how long exactly would a game be delayed if a queen vs king position were to be played out? Weeks? Months? I see what you mean if the guy has seven days to make his move, waits six days, and makes his move -- that's like running out the clock on live chess -- but if the person is sincere about the game he wouldn't do that -- if he is sincere he is only playing on for closure.

I mean, if another person playing on queen vs king meant you taking an extra 6 months to get your money, I would understand -- in that case that player should resign if they think the position is 99.999% lost or something. Otherwise, that "one last game" seems painless -- just start another tournament if you're bored.

If someone played out a queen vs king position and used maximum time outs and vacation and sick leave it could take several months to play out such a position.

If the position was a pawn end game where each player has a king and one player has a pawn that cannot be stopped from queening it would take even longer.

If a player was simply in a lost position that his opponent would always win unless the opponent died or something like that then it could take a year.

Now think about it. You have a high 14 person tournament and all the games are finished except for one and the one player is obviously abusing what he can legally do and this means that first, 2nd, third, 4th

place cannot be determined and also nobody knows how he placed in the tournament and also first place is seeded into say a world championship prelim--you can bet that the tournament director and almost all the players will be peeved at the one player. 

My correspondence play, I played a mixture of masters and experts-mostly masters, some very high masters, and all them was above the  novice level where they needed to play out a king vs queen endgame.

Ok, I will concede that correspondence (official correspondence, not chess.com correspondence for example) is different and you should resign certain positions. In OTB, a 20-30 minute delay isn't going to kill anyone.

So, hopefully you can see that one person, who is not a novice and is in fact say, a master, who delibertly plays out a completely lost game can very well affect every single player in a tournament and that one person can keep another player from advancing to a higher tournament and that one player can keep the prize money from  being given out for an extra year and that one person can prevent closure to the tournament for everybody. 

It seems to me that the problem is not the players's not resigning but delaying the game with vacation time etc., right?

Spielkalb, it is a combination of the two in special situations when there is a problem.

Something like this is rare, I have seen it happen to others but have not had any instance of unsportsmanlike conduct in over 40 years of postal and then correspondence play and in fact never really thought ahead of time that it would happen.

When it does happen, it can be very disruptive to the whole tournament and all the players. 

Elubas, it does sometimes happen that even a 20 minute delay can give a minor hurt to someone and also can be a situation where the person making the delay can be considered inconsiderate.

Example, you are playing a game with 30 minutes for each side for the entire game. On the 7th move you have a mate in 1 regardless of what your opponent can do.

Now if that opponent does not resign or play his move but lets the clock run out for 23 minutes then that person is inconsiderate [except in unusual circumstances such as he dies etc.] 

Yes, understood. I just wanted to point out that it's the specific circumstances within the tournament which lead to resent against playing on and not the 'pure' game situation on the board, if you know what I mean. 

I think this distinction is important and overseeing it lead the discussion in this thread going astray.

Anyway, if such situation occurs I like your approach of finding a creative way dealing with it.

It depends on what the opponent is thinking -- does he know mate is inevitable and is still stalling, or is he sincerely working his brain trying to figure out a way out of his predicament? In the former case I would agree with you.

In OTB the 30 extra minutes of inconvenience is worth it if it means the opponent being confirmed that he will actually lose the game, without having to guess or assume that he will. In CC, the situation is more extreme; for example, a person might even have financial hardship if he is used to winning a certain CC tournament and doesn't get his money for a long time. That simply can't be compared to an OTB situation, where the tournament will end the day it is scheduled to end.

Guys, it's their choice if they want to play it out; there's no rule that says to resign. Some people resign, yes, but why force them to resign because it's wasting your time! It's always brave to fight till checkmate. Sportsmanship is bad when you play out the full chess game! What if there was no resign option?? For the OTB situation...just better time management is needed. If a person does not want to give up and is actually persevering...just bring your lunch to the table if you want! Just remember that your  opponent can use as much time as they want, if it's an inconvienience to you then find a solution, don't blame everything on the opponent! Something like stalling when you have only one legal move, yeah, that's not acceptable. But saying that people should resign and considering it etiquette...this whole resigning thing is a mess! Not everyone has to resign...OTB I usually never resign unless my opponent actually is up a queen or more! Seriously...you're all making what-if situations...don't expect everyone to resign!

About vacation: Don't just assume that the player is stalling on purpose. That's why we actually have limited vacation time!!! It's not like you know what they do every day!! If they're on vacation without internet or just need a break (what's wrong with that), does it have to give you an impression of bad sportsmanship?? Just go on live then...don't be impatient to get rating points. People should NOT be pressured into resignation or having hope AT ALL.

Nobody is forcing anyone to resign. And I did not give one instance where anyone was pressured or even asked to resign.

  Re vacation and stalling if a person is about to be check mated in a correspondence game and has been taking maximum amount of time every move and that game is the last game still going on in a tournament and the person has been completely lost for several moves and instead of resigning or accepting a check mate takes a 2 month "vacation" then it is apparent that person is playing on out of spite. When that happens and it disrupts a whole tournament and it disrupts all other players in that tournament then it can safely be said that this person is abusing his right not to resign.

Also, nobody said or implied this has anything at all to do with being impatient to receive rating points. 

And the instances I was talking about mostly had to do with correspondence play which is a whole different ball of wax then over the board play.  So, do not assume because I say something about corresspondence play with masters and experts that this is what I am saying in over the board play with the average player.

And please give me one statement where I said someone should resign?

In fact, I have never told anyone they should resign.  In some rare instances where someone seems to be abusing their privledge--I gave an alternate solution to resolve the problem OTHER THAN asking that person to resign.

And nowhere did I ever say or indicate that I ever said anyone should resign and then I would consider it as etiquette.  Please read what I actually said and please do not misquote me or put motives on me that are not there.

If I can play hundreds of correspondence games over 40 some years and never and I mean never have a complaint about someone abusing their time--then that certainly belies what you are trying to say or imply about my motives.

Well, you say that resigning is a part of sportsmanship, so I interpret that as saying people ought to resign when they are lost.

Elubas, again you are misquoting me. I did not say "resigning is a part of sportsmanship."  I did give some very specific instances where a couple of players resigned what most people would think of as early and in those specific instances they were showing very good sportsmanship. But you cannot generalize from two  very specific cases where  resigning was showing good sportsmanship to a blank general statement that resigning is a part of good sportsmanship. 

Also, even if I had said that [which I certainly did not say] but if I had said resigning is a part of good sportsmanship that does not mean that not resigning is bad sportsmanship. Your thinking is way off on this to make such an assumption.

To give an example, people, or some people do random acts of kindness and that is a very good and positive thing.  But if someone does not do random acts of kindness that does not mean that person is doing a bad thing. And it does not mean that the person who does random acts of kindess is demanding that other people do the same thing.  And it  also does not mean that the person who does random acts of kindness thinks that everybody should do random acts of kindness.

What you have been doing all along is taking something positive somebody does and then trying to say  that I am saying if someone does not do this positive thing that I am saying it is bad sportsmanship and that is NOT what I have been saying at all.