Sacrificing the most valuable piece we can get away with for a knight is usually fun.
Your Opponent Won't Resign Be Creative!
Sort:
Ponz, posts like #183 simply pre-suppose the idea that not resigning is disrespect. You basically say, playing on is bad because my opponent played on and it was bad. Meanwhile, I give a valid reason for not resigning, connected with closure and competition, that you simply ignore. If this is how you argue, it is impossible to win against you.
The pre-supposition you are using towards your argument is precisely what we are debating in the first place! If I agreed with that assumption, there would be no debate at all.
However, there is some common ground here: I agree that spite is NOT a good reason to play on. And closely related: running out the clock is also bad in my opinion, because you don't care about the competition, and don't think it will help you, but simply want to annoy your opponent.
Compare that to playing on sincerely: You ARE doing something that you think at least could help your results in the long run, even if it probably won't. Trying to get a good result is the whole point of competition: Why else do we play "strong moves?" In fact, we literally define a strong move precisely based on the fact that it contributes to winning a game of chess; if there was no winning or losing in chess, checkmate would be a move no better than any other move!
Finally, why do we try to get good results? To prove how great individuals we are? Hopefully not. I want to beat my opponent, but it's a friendly want: it's just fun to put energy towards a goal -- it doesn't mean I have anything against him in real life. Compared to solo goals, there is more energy and tension when a goal is done in relation to another human being -- that is the essence of competition.
Even if finishing off queen vs king isn't a fun goal for me (although as it turns out, it is), if it's fun for my opponent, that's all that matters. I think that's true respect.
Post 183 does not pre-suspose that the act of not resigning is disrespect.
What part of post 183 gives you tha idea? post 183 indicated in certain circumstances the act of not resigning is disrespect. But those circumstances are rare. In fact in the post I indicated that 100% of all my correspondence games that not 1, not 1 out of hundreds of such games did I pre-suspose that not resigning was an act of disrespect. So, if you have a situation where there was no disrespect for hundreds of games that certainly does not show one instance where I thot not resigning was disrespect!
Now, regarding the 15 minute per player games I indicated about 3% of my opponents showed disrespect and those were the same kind of opponents that you agree showed disrespect. Those who just let the clock run out --those who were showing spite.
Where is your evidence from anything I said that I pre suspose not resigning shows disrespect? Only in rare cases have I said not resigning was showing disrespect and in ALL of those instances I came to the conclusion after my opponent had decided not to resign [no pre susposing about it at all].
"If a player delibertly disrupts a tournament or a game by playing on to the final move [very often out of spite because he is losing] then he certainly deserves the label "inconsiderate" and deserves no respect."
You simply say he is inconsiderate -- that is the argument. Your mind is already made up. You mention an instance where a person doesn't resign, and simply say it's disrespectful. You can only assert that if you pre-suppose that not resigning is disrespectful.
Sounds like he's saying if he's disruptive then he's disrespectful, and only then does he call them inconsiderate.
Only once in a tourney was I upset with an opponent who didn't resign. I was able to queen a pawn in a middlegame position, he tried for a perpetual, and it didn't work, he had no active pieces. By using nearly all his time I had about 10 minutes in between rounds to run out of the playing hall, get something to eat, and stuff it in my face on the way back. If he'd resigned after things became clearly lost I would have had 30+ minutes.
I'm guessing you'll say that's his right Elubas, 0.001% chance or whatever, but show me some of your tournament games where you've done this. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have dragged it out another 30 minutes.
"If he'd resigned after things became clearly lost I would have had 30+ minutes."
And if my opponent resigned to me on move 1 things would be even better.
I just don't like this demand of a convenience, and frankly, I do think the opponent's right trumps that. Maybe that's impractical; I think the reason why I am ok with playing on is because I dislike the opposite view even more; that we deserve some right to convenience. As far as a competitive game is concerned, I don't believe that.
Because I was bad (and probably still would be) at time management I really appreciated my time between rounds. Yeah that's my own fault, I had lunch on my mind and the kid kept playing :(
lol, sometimes I do think about playing on queen vs king (again, with my idea of no net loss), but I do have a practical side: I can assume my opponent will irrationally develop a grudge on me for it so I would probably not actually do it against a good player.
Well maybe you shoudln't call the grudge irrational until you're on the receiving end of mr never say die ;)
I've actually played till mate in a tournament game instead of resigning, but because the end was obvious I played quickly and didn't make him wait (it was a very nice attack so I thought I might as well let him mate me). We were both in a good mood afterwards and had a nice post mortem.
btw, if we're talking about showing sportsmanship through a game (which I don't really believe in), I do often play out pretty forced mates and allow them to be on the board, as embarrasing as they may be.
Elubas wrote:
btw, if we're talking about showing sportsmanship through a game (which I don't really believe in), I do often play out pretty forced mates and allow them to be on the board, as embarrasing as they may be.
You don't believe in good sportsmanship? You seem like a nice guy on the forum, I guess I'm glad I've never had to face you OTB :)
if someone sacced a queen with a forced mate,would you resign immediately?
Abhishek2 wrote:
if someone sacced a queen with a forced mate,would you resign immediately?
If it was forced and they clearly see (and I see it) then yes. (I've done this before although it was never a queen sac specifically).
If I think it's a particularly pretty mate then I'd consider letting them play it out.
I believe in sportsmanship, I just don't think it's shown through the game. It's shown by things like "gg, you played well."
btw, playing out a forced mate is a perfect of example of "no net loss" -- and it doesn't even take long to play out. If they see it, I'm just as well off as I would have been had I resigned.
Don't worry, I'll be nice to you if we play, but I may resign a bit late 
Resigning late is fine. If you started kicking me under the table I'd be upset :(
Elubas wrote:
I believe in sportsmanship, I just don't think it's shown through the game. It's shown by things like "gg, you played well."
btw, playing out a forced mate is a perfect of example of "no net loss" -- and it doesn't even take long to play out. If they see it, I'm just as well off as I would have been had I resigned.
Playing out a mate is fine. If you kept me at the table for 30 minutes in a dead lost position (no counter play, traps, etc) I wouldn't appreciate it.
I'm not even sure a dead lost position truly exists -- you always have to think or visualize at least a little bit in any position -- some more than others.
As a bullet player, you should know there is never a point where you wouldn't prefer more time, no matter what the position is. Your mind is still working.
Ponz, the point is this: What you call showing respect, I call putting your opponent's beliefs ahead of yours (assuming the loser wants to continue but feels obligated to resign "for his opponent."). I don't think that's politeness as much as it is being a pushover.
It doesn't matter whether you're urging people or not; you claiming that resigning shows respect, and vice versa, leads to the same thesis I am arguing against. I will remind you of what that is: Whether resigning is attached to sportsmanship.