31 Aug 12
Originally posted by iruI think the handshake has now been made part of the rules of professional chess. And by doing so, it drifts away from being part of etiquette and good manners. I think it is sad that it had to be made part of the rules, as it degrades the symbolism of the gesture.
Etiquette is a matter of general consensus. And there seems to be no consensus at all regarding when to resign. That's why I don't see it as part of chess etiquette. Compare this to handshake before and after an OTB game for example - avoiding it is seen as "bad manners" by everyone.
I remember Nigel Short asking the arbiter to force his opponent to shake hands or forfeit the game. Eventually, the handshake happened.
When it did happen, was this a sign of good manners? I think not.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderTell that to all the spectators leaving early because the home team is too far behind in the score!
Actually, I don't think this is a valid comparison. These are time-limited events where there is an expectation that people will continue to the end irrespective of the score. No such expectation exists in chess.
You may say 'Why is this the case?' to which I would say 'because that is what the overwhelming majority of players/spectators expect'. It's not about what's rational but just about the consensus of opinion, if there is one.
Originally posted by VarenkaMost of the games in a GM simul are foregone conclusions at move 1. If we really want players to show the proper level of respect to someone so vastly superior, then they should decline the game!
Tell that to any GM doing a simul and you can forget being given a seat. Sure, you can tell him it's your right to do so. And he'll tell you it's his right to agree to only play players who are capable of showing some respect during a game of chess.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf those spectators then discovered that their team had walked off, allowing the opponents to rack up a huge score, many of those very same spectators would slate their team for a lack of professionalism/team spirit etc.
Tell that to all the spectators leaving early because the home team is too far behind in the score!
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by VarenkaI don't see how your example (friendly simul game, no time controls, no ratings, no points) relates to rated game played on the internet or OTB. You don't really have a luxury to refuse to play in a match or tournament just because your opponent is known for not resigning in time.
Tell that to any GM doing a simul and you can forget being given a seat. Sure, you can tell him it's your right to do so. And he'll tell you it's his right to agree to only play players who are capable of showing some respect during a game of chess.
31 Aug 12
Something else that tends to get lost in this kind of discussion: when did chess players decide that it's not fun to play out a won game?
Is it weird that I enjoy the bit when my opponent's position is hopeless and I have total control of the game? I would think that feeds the ego like nothing else. I can do what I want with him. I can promote five pawns to N and give him a slow death, or treat it like a direct-mate problem and look for the cleanest, fastest kill.
It's kind of like in American football when one team is so far ahead that they bring in the scrubs off the bench and let them score some touchdowns. And they still celebrate each one.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambit🙂 Even superior players have to show that over the board. Once they have done that, and their opponents know the position is completely lost, it’s time to respectfully resign.
Most of the games in a GM simul are foregone conclusions at move 1. If we really want players to show the proper level of respect to someone so vastly superior, then they should decline the game!
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYeah - the expectation is that the beaten team plays until the end, although they often play listlessly, just going through the motions, not caring if they score any points or not. The fans will slate their team for losing in a blowout anyway. It's kind of masochistic.
If those spectators then discovered that their team had walked off, allowing the opponents to rack up a huge score, many of those very same spectators would slate their team for a lack of professionalism/team spirit etc.
Originally posted by VarenkaWe'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll resign if I know I'm hopelessly lost, but that's because I don't want to endure the pain of being checkmated with no chance of resistance. The respect part comes after the game - shake hands and say "well played".
🙂 Even superior players have to show that over the board. Once they have done that, and their opponents know the position is completely lost, it’s time to respectfully resign.
When I'm on the other side of the board and my opponent is dead lost, I'm not going to give him exactly what he wants by becoming angry or offended when he doesn't resign. No - I'm going to relish every minute of it: the grimaces of the spectators, the opponent's facial expressions, the strengthening of the position to make it even more ridiculously lopsided.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by VarenkaThe number of moves in a chess game or the style/method of it's resolution does make a difference, as some players, even up to GM strength, will continue to play simply because longer games are less likely to be published than short ones. Even the amount of material or the style of game in which the result was accomplished has value- Geoff's blogs are a case in point.
I don’t follow this analogy. It’s possible to know in a game of football who is going to win if they have a big enough lead with little time left, but there’s always a final score to play for. How many points did they win by? The final score can vary right to the end of the game even if the win/draw/loss outcome is inevitable. I can enjoy watching two te ...[text shortened]... o resign, or that there are genuine chances on the board to avoid a loss. I’m assuming neither.
The idea that there is a final score to play for does have value sometimes if total points scored influences seeding for the postseason or some similar process, but otherwise the 1-0/0-1 idea still applies. One team wins and one team loses, and a team that quits before the game has run its course would meet Aldan's "good manners" standard, but not many other people's standard.
I really think iru's post had ended this thread- when GMs can't be counted on to mate with bishop and knight vs king, playing on is arguably reasonable (I wouldn't, but I understand how some would), and quitting is really like what SwissGambit says: for the benefit of the loser.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by iruThis is GP's post taken to its logical conclusion, and I think we can rest the case on this one.
I've heard some stories about IMs and NMs being unable to deliver mate with bishop and knight within 50 moves. Did their opponents display "bad manners" by not resigning in theoretically lost positions?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThis is not automatically true, but it misses the point, really. Baseball is not a time-limited event, and the time-limited ones will end when the clock runs out, just like a chess game. Even more, when games are lopsided, many spectators will head for the parking lot before the game is even over when the conclusion if foregone.
Actually, I don't think this is a valid comparison. These are time-limited events where there is an expectation that people will continue to the end irrespective of the score. No such expectation exists in chess.
You may say 'Why is this the case?' to which I would say 'because that is what the overwhelming majority of players/spectators expect'. It's not about what's rational but just about the consensus of opinion, if there is one.
In their minds, the game is already over.
The real point is what you stated- there is an expectation that people will continue to the end irrespective of the score, whereas in chess this is a disputable subject. My point is that there is no expectation in other sporting activities- I was making a contrast, not a comparison.
Resigning before the game is formally completed is a relatively modern convention in chess, and started to become prevalent because the loser didn't want to continue, not because the winner was impatient.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by VarenkaThis is the standard I use. I certainly appreciate that others have differing ideas on the subject, but I like to combine the ideas of "show me" and "you don't have to show me twice"!
🙂 Even superior players have to show that over the board. Once they have done that, and their opponents know the position is completely lost, it’s time to respectfully resign.
31 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul LeggettOn RHP we see games like the following getting played out... Black was 1800+, White 1500+...
This is GP's post taken to its logical conclusion, and I think we can rest the case on this one.
Do you think this can be justified by presenting a theoretically won position such as B+N mate that Philidor (and more recently Dvoretsky, etc.) felt a need to document?
I believe the OP was referring to positions such as the above, so you should address those sort of positions.