Originally posted by iruIf the thought of debating pointless issues to the death does not appeal, then the Forums may not be the best place for you to spend your spare time. 😉
What 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?
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 w ...[text shortened]... o spend weeks and months debating this useless subject. I gave you mine solution, what's yours?
Why do we need a solution? Again, we are not debating rules. Some people wash their hands when they go to the bathroom. Some don't. I don't want to pass a law to enforce this.
But it might influence whose dinner party I choose to attend....
But I do offer a solution. I said there should be a general agreement that, if you reach a position where you feel that you have no realistic chance of winning or drawing (and you are allowed a very generous interpretation of this) and the only reason for playing on is simply to drag out the game, then you should resign. The decision is yours and yours alone.
Under my scenario, if you follow this principle, you are exhibiting good manners, if you don't you are not.
We don't need to classify positions, as there are no consequences if you do not follow these principles, except how people feel about you and whether they want to continue playing against you.
And despite what GP says, I suspect that anyone who knowingly plays every single chess game to the bitter end regardless of the situation would be regarded by most serious chess players as not observing the spirit of the game as it is played today.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderOk, you suggest the criteria for weaker side when to resign based on what he feels about the position. However stronger side doesn't know what weaker side feels or thinks. So what criteria do you suggest for stronger side to decide if he can accuse weaker side of bad manners?
If the thought of debating pointless issues to the death does not appeal, then the Forums may not be the best place for you to spend your spare time. 😉
Why do we need a solution? Again, we are not debating rules. Some people wash their hands when they go to the bathroom. Some don't. I don't want to pass a law to enforce this.
But it might i ...[text shortened]... by most serious chess players as not observing the spirit of the game as it is played today.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by iruYou're completely missing the point by looking at individual cases. The OP didn't make an accusation against an individual. An individual might well play on because he has no idea it's bad manners. But that does not override the principle that it might be generally considered bad manners. Without counting this thread is about 50-50 so on the surface it doesn't seem general one way or the other.
Ok, you suggest the criteria for weaker side when to resign based on what he feels about the position. However stronger side doesn't know what weaker side feels or thinks. So what criteria do you suggest for stronger side to decide if he can accuse weaker side of bad manners?
GPs "poster child" plays "most" of his games to the end. This suggests that he is aware of resignation and applies his own criteria of when to do so and cannot fall into the category of "it's good manners to let your opponent mate you". Now I'm wondering about how GP came across all these lads who fall into this category. Clearly he has been pestering people who are dragging out games against him to resign to find this out :-)
There's no need for a rule change. There's no need for any mechanism to get your opponent to resign in-game. There's no need for FPTs. There's no need for "name and shame lists" ( apart from kingshill's profile ). There's no need for "resign now" PMs. That would be bad manners.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by thaughbaerAgreed...
There's no need for a rule change. There's no need for any mechanism to get your opponent to resign in-game. There's no need for FPTs. There's no need for "name and shame lists" ( apart from kingshill's profile ). There's no need for "resign now" PMs. That would be bad manners.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by thaughbaerWhat is a THAUGHBAER ?
You're completely missing the point by looking at individual cases. The OP didn't make an accusation against an individual. An individual might well play on because he has no idea it's bad manners. But that does not override the principle that it might be generally considered bad manners. Without counting this thread is about 50-50 so on the surface it do ...[text shortened]... ofile ). There's no need for "resign now" PMs. That would be bad manners.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI mentioned ratings in the same post I answered to your "Doesn't this position fall outside of those 3 bullet points?".
The context was specific aspects of positions that made them hopeless. The ratings hadn't been mentioned for 2-3 pages.
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 en ...[text shortened]... esignable against them, or are they not worthy of a resignation regardless of the position?
Look at the kind of positions where one side resigned in CC World Championships prior to engine support. Or look at typical resigned positions in the current Olympiad. Or typical positions in my local junior tournament.
Do I expect these all to be the same? No.
Do I have a formula that says what is respectable or not? No, players have to apply common sense.
If I were playing a GM, the chances of a saving swindle are not the same as if I were playing a junior from my local club.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI haven't commented yet, and for good reason.
If the thought of debating pointless issues to the death does not appeal, then the Forums may not be the best place for you to spend your spare time. 😉
Why do we need a solution? Again, we are not debating rules. Some people wash their hands when they go to the bathroom. Some don't. I don't want to pass a law to enforce this.
But it might i ...[text shortened]... by most serious chess players as not observing the spirit of the game as it is played today.
Many many players I play, and even when I am under defeat, request to play out the game to learn! To see how it is done.
This game is about continous learning, and for a player losing, who wants to play on to learn, why should he just 'jack it in'?
I am being stuffed by a 2200 player, and I request to play on, and he agrees, am I doing wrong in wanting to learn?
If a 1700 player playing me requests to play on, to learn, is he/she doing wrong?
Why is the REQUEST necessary to learn?
Playing by the rules, and gaining from them even when beaten is not bad mannered, but may be a way of learning new tactics.......
Consider that please?
-m.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo mere material advantage makes a position hopeless. It is possible to be two whole queens up, yet get mated behind your own fence.
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?
More to the point: what constitutes enough of a lost position to resign is up to the resigner. It cannot be up to the winning player to decide he is winning and therefore he has the right to demand that his opponent give up. Who is he to make that claim? He is not the one who is resigning. It's completely respectless to demand a resignation, IMO; the lack of respect is on the part of the person demanding he be resigned to much more so than on the part of the person who refuses to do so. At least the latter has decided to play chess.
Richard
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by mikelomCan you clarify. If I need to be shown how it is done, I don't regard myself as clearly lost. I usually resign in positions where I can see how I'm going to be beat in a straighforward manner. If you're still learning from a game, it sounds to me like a fair case to be playing on.
To see how it is done.
Hi Thaugbaer.
"Now I'm wondering about how GP came across all these lads who fall into this category......" 🙂
I've had a few who played on and on. I never said anything.
I am willing to play them again. I was never insulted in anyway at all.
After the game I, as always, sent a few pointers to where the game went astray.
One piece of advice I gave the lads I was coaching in Bates Motel was that
when all was lost then always resign. A player may be more willing to share his
thoughts if you concede at the correct moment. Turn the lose into a lesson.
Hi Rank outsider.
"And despite what GP says, I suspect that anyone who knowingly plays every
single chess game to the bitter end regardless of the situation would be regarded
by most serious chess players as not observing the spirit of the game as it is
played today."
Agreed. However 90% of the lads on here are not serious chess players.
I cannot stand by and see them branded as bad mannered or 'brutes' just
because a few on here are swanning about with their beak stuck up their arse
squealing in a public forum because a player won't resign just because they
think they should.
Just who do these guys think they are? What an insult.
Look at Capabalnca's games and the amount times players never resigned
against him when all was clearly lost.
The great Frank Marshall played on in some totally lost games, loads of
players did from that era.
But forget them, much easier to pick on some poor lad who plays chess for fun
and thinks the game concludes with checkmate.
Have a look at the flimsy set of rulles that comes with a cheap boxed set.
Very few if any mention resignation. They ALL state the game ends with checkmate.
So this lad in all innocence thinking he is playing a fellow friendly chess player
from another country plays on till the end and will no doubt send 'Well Played'.
Please leave them alone.
The losing player decides when the game ends.
He can either choose to be checkmated or resign.
Leave them that small grace. Show some respect.
Originally posted by VarenkaI don't think mannerly resignation depends at all on 'common sense', but on the subjective emotional reaction of the winning player. When is it good manners to resign? Whenever I might offend my opponent by playing on in a position that he, and not necessarily me, considers hopeless.
I mentioned ratings in the same post I answered to your "Doesn't this position fall outside of those 3 bullet points?".
Look at the kind of positions where one side resigned in CC World Championships prior to engine support. Or look at typical resigned positions in the current Olympiad. Or typical positions in my local junior tournament.
Do I expect ...[text shortened]... hances of a saving swindle are not the same as if I were playing a junior from my local club.
I guess that's why this rankles. Already taxed with a bad position, the loser is expected to take responsibility for preventing or limiting specific unpleasant emotional states in the winner's mind. It's absurd!
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI agree 100%.
No mere material advantage makes a position hopeless. It is possible to be two whole queens up, yet get mated behind your own fence.
More to the point: what constitutes enough of a lost position to resign is up to the resigner. It cannot be up to the winning player to decide he is winning and therefore he has the right to demand that his opponent giv ...[text shortened]... t of the person who refuses to do so. At least the latter has decided to play chess.
Richard
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo, not "bad positions". Hopelessly lost positions! There's a big difference. 🙂
Already taxed with a bad position, the loser is expected to take responsibility for preventing or limiting specific unpleasant emotional states in the winner's mind
You're painting a picture of the loser suffering, but players who know that they're completely lost don't choose to do so.
The reality that we're talking about here is someone saying to themself "ok, I'm not going to avoid losing this but I'm going to make him wait". This is the scenario I have in mind but I differ from GP in the extent to which I think it is acceptable before I'd also label them a "sulker". Do you agree that "sulking" takes place?
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't think anyone has argued that one person should dictate when another should resign. If they did I missed it. Despite your protestations otherwise, I think you know exactly the kind of thing which is being suggested are bad manners here. Even my former queen is guilty of practices which I would consider bad manners. Thread 10994. I only know this because you pointed it out to me. So if this qualifies me to have my beak up my arse I think your beak should be up there with it.
Agreed. However 90% of the lads on here are not serious chess players.
I cannot stand by and see them branded as bad mannered or 'brutes' just
because a few on here are swanning about with their beak stuck up their arse
squealing in a public forum because a player won't resign just because they
think they should.
Just who do these guys think they are? What an insult.