Okay how about this position you are black and your opponent is Kasparov?
White to Play
CHESS ETIQUETTE: Playing On In Ridiculous Positions, etc,
Sort:
GMPatzer
Jan 30, 2020
0
#121
GMPatzer wrote:
Okay how about this position you are black and your opponent is Kasparov?
White to Play
There is zero chance I would resign in that position. For a couple reasons. First, it depends on the time. If I were black and the opponent only had a tenth of a second left, I would not resign. Secondly, if that opponent were Kasparov, who is a famous chess player, I might not get the chance to play him very often. So I would not only want to see how he plays the rest of the game, I would also want to see how many moves I could last against him. Afterall, in your scenario I would feel pretty good about just getting to that position.
Jan 31, 2020
0
#123
lfPatriotGames wrote:
GMPatzer wrote:
Okay how about this position you are black and your opponent is Kasparov?
White to Play
...
I would also want to see how many moves I could last against him.
...
In the given position, that's quite predictable.
As long as the player isn't stalling it isn't awful etiquette to play on even in an insurmountable position. I was playing in a tie-break game against a weaker player and it ended up with me having a queen and rook against his king. I simply did a quick mate.
He played each move at a reasonable speed and of the ten plus serious chess players watching not a single one suggested it was bad etiquette (one chuckled when I set up the "mat de l'escalier").
It's fair as long as you're not stalling to force the player to play to the end (it should only be a minute or two from a truly dead loss until mate) and it can actually be appreciated by some opponents who like to have mate on the board.
SpiderUnicorn a écrit :
In this position, Melvin, you are white. Then you wait for Black to play Qe8 and get checkmated, or resign. But, Black still has 2 hours and 20 minutes left, and let's assume you have only 5 seconds left, because you took a long time to think on your moves. Then Black decides to stall, until he has only 10 seconds left, then he will finally play the move. Because you know, Black has the RIGHT to make you actually win, and he also has the RIGHT, to play moves whenever he wants, as long as its within the time control. And then, because you only have 5 seconds left, you can't leave and do something else, because then Black will just move, and you'll timeout. Therefore, you're forced to sit there for more than 2 hours, just to wait for your opponent make a move. Only people who eat bluestones will like to do such a thing.
RIGHTS and RESPECT aren't the same thing. Just because they both start with an 'R' doesn't mean that they mean the same thing.
In FIDE rules the arbiter could force the player to play Qe8 if it seemed he had no intention of playing (ie he was just sitting there for 15 minutes in a position with one legal move).
So your point is non existent. Extreme stalling is banned under FIDE rules.
Jan 31, 2020
0
#126
zenwabi wrote:
In my area, at over-the-board tourneys, I encounter scholastic players who are weak in the chess etiquette department., so I am putting up this post, for action and comment.
(1) If your opponent has an insurmountable advantage, and checkmate is inevitable, do NOT play on in a ridiculous position, unless there is a reasonable chance for a stalemate draw. You cannot play a chess game without an opponent, so show him or her some respect and do not waste his time by forcing him to play out a ridiculous position that does not even have a drawing chance for you.
I completely agree and disagree ...okay, I know that made no sense 
So, on one hand, if I'm your opponent, I HIGHLY ADVISE you to play on -- especially if I have <10 minutes left on my clock (which happens often). There are games I've lost up an exchange and TWO pawns, and in the case of otb blitz, games I've lost on time more than two queens up. From the other side of the board, I don't necessarily get annoyed when someone plays on, because it forces me to practice my endgame technique (which is practically non-existent). And even if I lose, I still must have learned something from the game.
From a spectator's point of view, however, I find this extremely annoying. Once, we were at this tournament and everyone was waiting for this one person in our section to finish their games so we could see the results. The game had already been going for 5 hours, and then one of the players managed to prevent all of his opponent's checks, exchange queens, and be a piece up in the pawn endgame. After the side that was a piece up took all of his opponent's pawns (leaving him with a King), he promoted one of his pawns. The position looked somewhat like this
And he still stalled out that position for 1 whole hour! 
title:
CHESS ETIQUETTE: Playing On In Ridiculous Positions, etc,
me: lol nice english u got there zenwabi. not
Feb 2, 2020
0
#128
Love all the comments, but have to add my 2 cents too. I agree with everything except the first point. Your job is to win, not to expect your opponent to assume you will win. When and if he decides the position is hopeless, he will resign. I he's a GM against another GM, that might be upon losing the exchange. If it's a 600 rated newbie, it might never be--even with one king vs. three queens and a king.
So accept the resignation gracefully in the first case, and put the "victim" out of his misery with as much tact and economy as possible In the second case.
MSteen -- the best summary on this topic I have read, and I have read most of them. Thank you!
Feb 7, 2020
0
#130
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Except for that "losing the exchange" thing.
GMs have resigned for lesser reasons!
Feb 7, 2020
0
#131
When looking at games from the 80s, I sometimes think they resigned when a pawn had a hair crack.
Feb 7, 2020
0
#132
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Or maybe there were flies in the lighting fixture!
That would have been a reason for Bobby Fischer not to show up in the first place.
corum wrote:
I could never accept the first one. A player has every right to play on no matter what the circumstances. I know you can say that a position is 'clearly lost' but I can always find positions where people would disagree on that. What is lost according to one player still has play according to another. Besides, even if a player thinks he is losing he is entitled to play on. He may want to learn by seeing how his opponent wins the game, or he may be hoping for an blunder (why not?) or he may think he can win on time (playing your moves within time is part of the game). I often hear players say that they would have won but they ran out of time and it's not fair. Sorry. The reason you are 'winning' may well be because you took so long making your moves whereas your opponent moved more quickly; if they win on time that is good gameplay.
i kind of agree with this; but when I play a "ridiculous position" I am either trying to confuse my opponent into making a mistake, or trying out a new strategy if the game is already an obvious win for me ( sometimes I will also do this even when I am not strictly winning. The result is usually a lost game.)
ChessicallyInclined wrote:
I have a general guideline for playing on in "ridiculous" positions (as you call them)
You should resign when:
1: You find the win for your opponent, and
2: You have complete confidence in your opponent finding a win.
Example: I've got a bare King against a 1500, who has a Bishop and Knight. Despite my ability to win for his side, I will ask him to demonstrate his technique.
Example 2: I'm a Rook down against a 2000, with little to no active play. Resignation.
Example 3: I'm a Rook down against a 2000, but I have a trap hidden in the next few moves that, if he falls for it, gets me back in the game. I will wait until he avoids the trap to resign.
The knight and bishop mate isn't forced
Feb 11, 2020
0
#137
The kids are the worst offenders on these etiquette issues, and it is the responsibility of us older players to educate them. Another interesting etiquette issue is created by the player who shows up at the board with an obvious fulminant cold. He's coughing, hacking, and sneezing, and spewing forth germs towards you and anyone else nearby. What can you do? In a recent podcast, USCF TD Michael Regan opined that TD's can use USCF Rule 20G, ANNOYING BEHAVIOR PROHIBITED, to deal with this situation. Possible remedies could be expelling the sick player from the tourney, or at least requiring him to wear an anti-germ surgical mask.
I've started carrying surgical masks in my tourney bag to deal with this situation in the future. At the 2019 NAO in Las Vegas, one of my opponents coughed in my face (he did try putting his arm in front of his mouth) the whole game, and I did come down with bronchitis shortly thereafter.
Feb 11, 2020
0
#138
Saggy752 wrote:
I never resign any of my games, because I want to learn from all positions(even lost ones) and I think that playing long games is just part of being a chess player. I understand that it might be annoying to the opponent but even if I am playing a 2200, with a queen, I would rather take my chances than lose. A 1600 played too fast, and drew against me. Up a bishop, and a queen!
There is not much to learn from playing something like K vs KR. You also don't learn to play long games, because you don't need to keep focused. Surely you are moving pieces, but you don't really play chess. Neither does your opponent. You may of course continue playing, but I don't think it will improve any of your skills.
Feb 11, 2020
0
#139
Hey, ghost of bushwood, ain't nothing funny about respiratory infections, pal. May the next coughing kid be sitting across from you, pal.
