Originally posted by iruSorry, but when you said 'I will be annoyed of course' I think you actually meant you would be annoyed at your opponent dragging it out. And I can't see why you would be annoyed if I was acting in a way that you think is perfectly acceptable.
Position can annoy me for many reasons - for example because it's boring and I shouldn't have started so many games in first place...
As for your example - I still don't think it's bad manners. I don't care what are your motives. We agreed to play on certain terms and that's what we do. And it can't last for 2 years because I only play 7 days/move 😀
Originally posted by Rank outsiderMy opponent has 2 perfectly acceptable options: play on or resign. I'd prefer him to resign. He chooses other option and this annoys me. But when somebody annoys someone else it does not automatically mean he displays "bad manners". Is it clearer now? If not I am really sorry but English is not my native language.
Sorry, but when you said 'I will be annoyed of course' I think you actually meant you would be annoyed at your opponent dragging it out. And I can't see why you would be annoyed if I was acting in a way that you think is perfectly acceptable.
Originally posted by iruYes, thanks. We don't agree, but the world would be a dull place if we all did!
My opponent has 2 perfectly acceptable options: play on or resign. I'd prefer him to resign. He chooses other option and this annoys me. But when somebody annoys someone else it does not automatically mean he displays "bad manners". Is it clearer now? If not I am really sorry but English is not my native language.
I can assure you that your English is very good, and way better than my skill in any other language, and chess for that matter.🙂
Originally posted by VarenkaIt was anything but very very small until you cut a giant swath through it by accepting a position where white was down a Q and P for nothing as possessing 'genuine chances of a stalemate'. 😵
I didn't say there were *good* chances, even with hindsight! 🙂
[b]But it seems like we've reduced the set of mannerly-resignable positions to something very very small now
The number of positions where one side has a huge material advantage and the other side has no realistic chance of a swindle is anything but very very small.[/b]
Originally posted by SwissGambitI also stated "We've also reduced the Black player's rating by 350 points or so." Are you taking my comment out of context of the players actually involved in that game? If you showed me that position and told me that two top computers were playing or GMs, I'd have said "zero chances of stalemate". So keep it in context.
It was anything but very very small until you cut a giant swath through it by accepting a position where white was down a Q and P for nothing as possessing 'genuine chances of a stalemate'. 😵
My example used a 1800+ player. Your example used a 1400+. Hardly the same comparison.
Hi V
I'm not attacking a 'straw man' (I've no idea what that expression means) Or even arguing with you.
The debate is - is it bad manners to play on when you are completly lost?
Some think it is but I think not for reasons I have stated.
We now appear to be disagreeing as to what degree of a loss is resignable
between two good players.
Again I have to say the player who is losing has the right to play on.
There is no rule to force him to resign.
The winning player does however have to follow the rule that says once
his opponent has moved, he must move, That is the rules of Chess.
He cannot run to a TD and declare the game be stopped because he has
an overwhelming position and is a chess set up. He has to play on.
No matter what position is put forward one can always state 'something' may happen.
Recently this appeared in an OTB game.
(I'm not 100% sure of the position but the set up and pieces for each side were the same.)
Black won this game and it was not time.
(Black cannot win on time in this position, if White's flags falls it's a draw.)
Yet Black won.
White all flustered promoted the pawn to a Black Queen and was mated with
the Black Queen. The result stood.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Why do you make it seem like we're debating the rules when we're clearly not?
There is no rule to force him to resign.
We're debating sportmanship and showing some respect for one's opponent. If there's no such thing like that to you - just rules - fair enough.
What are you doing up at this time of the morning.
I've an excuse, I've just finished work and I'm knacked.
Yes one should resign when one knows they are totally lost.
I do when I can see there is nothing left and playing on is pointless.
But now I think about it I do it for me. Not for my opponent.
I have decided the game is now over the honorable thing to do is resign.
Well played.
Respect?
How about showing some respect for the other's players decision (and right ) to play on.
They are not yet ready to resign. I can respect that.
Originally posted by VarenkaWhat is your solution then? Do you have some magic formula that upon entering the position and ratings of 2 opponents will tell you if not resigning is bad manners?
Yeah, unfortunately some people are never ready to resign. You can respect them for that and I'll choose not to. We can agree on that.
Because I can bombard you with millions of positions with various degree of material and positional advantage for one side and ask you a clear and final verdict whether it should be resigned. And we risk to spend weeks and months debating this useless subject. I gave you mine solution, what's yours?
Originally posted by VarenkaThe context was specific aspects of positions that made them hopeless. The ratings hadn't been mentioned for 2-3 pages.
I also stated "We've also reduced the Black player's rating by 350 points or so." Are you taking my comment out of context of the players actually involved in that game? If you showed me that position and told me that two top computers were playing or GMs, I'd have said "zero chances of stalemate". So keep it in context.
My example used a 1800+ player. Your example used a 1400+. Hardly the same comparison.
How much weight would you give to the rating difference? Would you say that is more of a factor than the position on the board in deciding when is 'proper' to resign?
I think it's interesting that a 1400+ is not considered good enough to reliably win when they're a whole Queen up. What sort of material advantage is resignable against them, or are they not worthy of a resignation regardless of the position?