27 May 06
Originally posted by dpressnellWell the point isn't that you resign a lost game only for selfish reasons.
Thanks for your excellent answer!
You resign out of respect for your opponent and the game. Those items are tied in with self-respect.
There was a lot going on in this thread and you picked out one item.
The thread went on longer than it should have and contains a number of posts saying you should never resign.
Why?
1. Your opponent may blunder away that Queen and both Rooks.
2. Your opponent may die, quit the site, or go inot a coma and you could win on time.
3. It's a way to exact your frustration with the uncouth lout for beating you in the first place.
A big part of all of these plans is to slow down the game to one move per time period.
I was arguing that this was wrong for a number of reasons. You picked out one of the smallest and attacked that point. I never said that was my strongest point. It was merely an ancilliary thought.
Love your neighbor and yourself.
03 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightThat was how the game could've been won in the situations mentioned.
From another thread. In reponse to a question about how a poster won two games with a King and a Bishop against a lone King:
"one timed out
and another one the opponent croaked. [heart attack - I'm a jinx]"
This is Chess?
The point is; it's bad etiquette to expect someone to resign and even worse to ask them to.
And anyone who says otherwise has lost the plot - chess is a game for enjoyment - if you don't enjoy it p'raps you should give it up.
03 Jun 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYou're absolutely correct. The K+B vs. K game could have been won by dragging it out hoping that one ofthe opponents quit or was stricken ill.
That was how the game could've been won in the situations mentioned.
The point is; it's bad etiquette to expect someone to resign and even worse to ask them to.
And anyone who says otherwise has lost the plot - chess is a game for enjoyment - if you don't enjoy it p'raps you should give it up.
At one move every 3 days, with both sides employing the delay strategy that's 300 days until the automatic draw at 50 moves kicks in. 300 days is a long time!
Frankly, if you are going to try to defend that strategy, I believe that you've made my point for me!
Of course, in a tournament, one side could call over the TD and force the draw.
"chess is a game for enjoyment " How enjoyable is it to move a K+B or a K randomly around the board once every 3, 7, or 14 days hoping your opponent quits or worse?
05 Jun 06
RHP Chess Quiz?
Player A and Player B enter a Long Haul Tournament on RHP in May 2006. The Tournament has a 21 day Timeout and a 21 day Timebank.
In August of 2006 the game reaches a point where A has a King and a Bishop and B has a King and a Knight.
Neither player wants to concede the Draw and both embark on a delay strategy seeking to outlast there opponent.
Presuming that each player makes optimum use of there there timeout and timebank, that neither blunders into a checkmate or a stalemate, and that neither quits the website or dies, in what year will round 2 of the Long Haul commence?
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThat's ridiculous.
The point is; it's bad etiquette to expect someone to resign and even worse to ask them to.
If I feel the game is dragging on I respectfully ask him if he wants to resign and start a rematch. Guess what, most of the times people agreed and we started another one right away!
It is often less enjoyable to lose time dragging on a lost position, but some people do it out of habit. Asking them is just a reminder for them to see if they really believe it is the best thing to continue. If they want to continue, I then refrain from asking again.
This is such a normal behaviour that I feel ridiculous even having to defend it.
Bad etiquette? Why?
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree with you. I've often felt ridiculous defending some of my positions on this thread.
That's ridiculous.
If I feel the game is dragging on I respectfully ask him if he wants to resign and start a rematch. Guess what, most of the times people agreed and we started another one right away!
It is often less enjoyable to lose time dragging on a lost position, but some people do it out of habit. Asking them is just a reminder for them to see ...[text shortened]... uch a normal behaviour that I feel ridiculous even having to defend it.
Bad etiquette? Why?
06 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightThe whole point is;
I agree with you. I've often felt ridiculous defending some of my positions on this thread.
The player losing badly should know it's time to resign without being TOLD to. And it's too impolite to tell them to.
A lot obviously depends on what ones own standards are of course.
Note; I don't say you should play on in hopeless positions [unless you have a good reason] just don't tell your opponent how to play his game.
06 Jun 06
1 edit
My theory is...
A player should resign when he feels that there is no reason to play on. (but some may be to stubborn or stupid to realise its pointless)
A player should only ask a player if he wants to resign after hes dropped a couple of hints and the game has gone significantly past the point at which you would resign if you where the oppersition.
When playing a lower rater player understand that they do not see the game as you do and have reasons for playing a game longer that you do.
When player at a high level (1600+??? 1800+???) NEVER ask your opponent to resign.
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by lafredoI don't think that I have ever asked an opponent to resign. I did hint at it once when I was up 2 rooks and a queen against nothing but pawns.
My theory is...
A player should resign when he feels that there is no reason to play on. (but some may be to stubborn or stupid to realise its pointless)
A player should only ask a player if he wants to resign after hes dropped a couple of hints and the game has gone significantly past the point at which you would resign if you where the oppersition. ...[text shortened]... at you do.
When player at a high level (1600+??? 1800+???) NEVER ask your opponent to resign.
I don't really care if someone plays on in a lost position.
What I am firmly against is a strategy of delaying tactics in a lost game where the player who is way behind delays moving until the timeout period has almost expired in hopes that their opponent will quit the site or worse and that the player with the lost position will win by time forfeit.
I had let the thread die until I came across a number of individuals on a different thread arguing that the thing to do in a K+B vs. a lone K ending was to play on slowly hoping to win by time forfeit.
This impresses me as being wrong.
My rule of thumb for when you should resign was simple. You should resign when the game reaches a point where you would expect the other side to resign if the shoe was on the other foot.
- Joined
- 27 Oct 05
- Moves
- 197755
06 Jun 06
1 edit
I watched a game on here recently where white was 2 rooks, 1 bishop and 5 pawns against 2 rooks. Normally a resigning position, but white's attempts to finish the game off were so ridiculous that black kept playing in amazement at white's antics.
It was quite entertaining really :-)
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by kingcolemkwhite couldn't win with that lead?
I watched a game on here recently where white was 2 rooks, 1 bishop and 5 pawns against 2 rooks. Normally a resigning position, but white's attempts to finish the game off were so ridiculous that black kept playing in amazement at white's antics.
It was quite entertaining really :-)
How did he get that lead in the first place?
