On the contrary, I had a 1900 player play on in a dead lost postion. It's a myth that only low rated players play under these circumstances. I don't mind discussing these things. I just don't like to see people get upset about something they can't help. A player has every right to play down to checkmate. In this case, RHP is just like over the board. If I'm playing somebody in a tournament and he doesn't want to resign, I take a walk, look at some games, read the paper, etc. I'm thinking maybe the guy doesn't realize he's in such bad shape, maybe it's an ego thing, maybe he has nothing better to do. I play enough games on RHP where, if someone is playing on in a lost positioin, I make the move and go to another game where I am in deep trouble and my opponent is probably thinking, "Why doesn't this #@!&* jerk just resign."
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemOk,so I'll continue the game and make it a pain in the ass for him avoiding the quickest solution.
I don't believe it's bad etiquette not to resign in a 'lost' position. The purpose of resignation is to spare the [b]losing player from continuing in a miserable position, not to make things easier for the winning player.[/b]
Happy now?
However I don't what's the fun in playing on a "miserable position",for both players.
Originally posted by foilI suppose it depends on the opponent. If he knows what he's doing, I resign because I feel I'm wasting my time and his.
It is extremely rude to ask someone to resign. Show some class when you have beaten an opponent. Save that behavior for the Playstation world.
Against a weaker player, I'll play on in the hope he makes a mistake. In this game Game 1164176 I played horribly - no excuses. But still decided to carry on in a lost situation. He took his time, but eventually found the winning line without messing up.
Originally posted by welsharnieGame 1214996
I agree. Once you get to a standard of say 1500+, i'd say if you are a rook down it would be curteous to resign.
If i am playing a person equal in ability to myself and I am a piece down I will resign, unless I have an attack or some sort of compensation.
In this game I was a 2 rooks 2 bishops 2 knights 6 pawns and a queen down, and I should have resigned?
Also I have said before in a given position there are many ways to win or draw. Here are a few:
1. Time. If your opponenet loses time you win or draw
2. Stalemate. If your opponent stalemates you it's a draw.
3. Offer Draw. If you are playing a game against me and are losing for example I will not refuse a draw.
4. 3 fold repetition. Mistakes do happen.
5. 50 move rule. You can get a draw by this
6. Blunder. Your opponent may blunder giving you a draw or even a win.
7. Resignation. Your opponent may think they are losing or just resign accidentally this has happened before.
8. A "friend" moves for them. A person who has access to your opponents account may move for them, which may cost them the game. This has also happened before.
While there are these and other reasons to play on, not resigning in any position is hardly disrespectful or poor etiquite. Another thing I may add is that Garry Kasparov resigned a game that he should have drawn. Firstly, if he didn't consider resignation in the first place he would have tried harder to find the best move, and secondly I do not doubt he would have found it and played the game out to it's correct result. Personally I prefer if my opponents never resign. If anyone wants me to list more reasons to not resign I'd be happy to, I can probably come up with 15 overall from the top of my head.
Originally posted by RavelloI don't know what is "generally considered" bad etiquette as far as this goes. Nor do I care. As a rule I won't bow down to peer pressure about when I should resign. That's just pathetic.
Everyone here is saying "it's his right to play on".
This is obvious and doesn't answer the initial question posted by Alpha10.
Let's put the question in those terms: [b]Is generally considered bad etiquette playing on hopeless games?
I believe yes.[/b]
As far as I am concerned, I fight on as long as I see some reasonably possible hope of winning or drawing, even if that depends on my opponent making a blunder. I never get upset when my opponent refuses to resign. I just mop him up in as much time as it takes. What do I care? It's not like I am limited to XXX games at a time. Actually, if my opponent plays intelligently and I think he thinks he has some chance, I respect him more for trying to salvage what he can.
I think it's bad etiquette to make a comment during the game about whether your opponent should resign or not (probably not exactly what the posters here are talking about.) Anyway, on Gameknot I was getting beaten up by a 2000 player, but I thought I still had a 2% chance maybe of getting a draw. My worthy opponent asked me why I was continuing to play (a question I had asked myself for a week). I was so put out by the comment I resigned immediately. The guy wrote back, apologized, and said he only meant to save me some time and trouble. Funny how the winners always want to save you time and trouble. I put him on my no-play list because I just couldn't stomach going through another game with him (and probably a loss) because my feeling were hurt. But generally I've found the really highly rated players will let you play on and on, thrashing around in your feeble efforts to equalize and won't say a word about it. In fact when you make a comment about a move, they are usually quite helpful in return. Maybe that's why they are rated so high; they just focus on winning the game no matter how long it takes.
Originally posted by RavelloIf it's really a pain in the ass to win a game, then perhaps the win isn't clear yet.
Ok,so I'll continue the game and make it a pain in the ass for him avoiding the quickest solution.
Happy now?
However I don't what's the fun in playing on a "miserable position",for both players.
I don't care whether/when you or anyone else chooses to resign games. I'm just saying it's ridiculous for a player who is winning a game to expect the opponent to resign. Might as well have your horse stop running if he's a few lengths behind.
I don't know about you, but I love having a winning position. It's anything but 'miserable' for me.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemChess, especially winning a game, is miserable at best I can't stand checkmating my opponent.. if he doesn't resign I'll do it for him, as long as I don't win the game the way it was supposed to be played.
If it's really a pain in the ass to win a game, then perhaps the win isn't clear yet.
I don't care whether/when you or anyone else chooses to resign games. I'm just saying it's ridiculous for a player who is winning a game to expect the opponent to resign. Might as well have your horse stop running if he's a few lengths behind.
I don't know about you, but I love having a winning position. It's anything but 'miserable' for me.