21 Mar 05
Chess is one of the few competitive games where a player is expected to give up rather than continuing until the end. Resignation is for the benefit of the guy in the losing position, not the guy in the winning position.
It is a serious ethical violation to post a game in progress to a public discussion forum! You are giving your opponent a legitimate grievance against you, in that you may receive advice from others on how to finish the game...no matter how slight.
21 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemPlease look at the game b4 telling me something i already know. There is no possibility of escape, the king moves between two squares until he is mated. No other variations are possible.
Chess is one of the few competitive games where a player is expected to give up rather than continuing until the end. Resignation is for the benefit of the guy in the [b]losing position, not the guy in the winning position.
It ...[text shortened]... vice from others on how to finish the game...no matter how slight.[/b]
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by marinakatombThe problem here is not whether you know how to win the game or not, it is that you posted a game in progress for discussion on a public board. Already another poster has warned you to avoid stalemate. This is completely unfair to your opponent. He didn't sign up to play a consultation game.
Please look at the game b4 telling me something i already know. There is no possibility of escape, the king moves between two squares until he is mated. No other variations are possible.
What's next, spectators calling 'flag!' at an OTB tournament?
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThe game is ridiculous and James surely won't be stalemated ,since he's skilled enough to not make it happens (there's no choice for the lone king however).
The problem here is not whether you know how to win the game or not, it is that you posted a game in progress for discussion on a public board. Already another poster has warned you to avoid stalemate. This is completely unfair to your opponent. He didn't sign up to play a consultation game.
What's next, spectators calling 'flag!' at an OTB tournament?
I agree that we shouldn't be talk about games in progress,but this game simply has nothing to be discussed : this is a good example of poor sportmanship and how some players go ''mulish'' because they want to delay the loss to have their ego hurted a little less.
It could have sense if the winning player was rated 1000-1100,but against a good 1600 it's a waste of time which he can use instead for a new game.
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by rhbIf someone PM's me asking to resign I take offence.
did you try messaging your opponent to point out what is going on?
maybe that might get them to think about what they are doing...
It infuriates me so much I feel I must survive as long as possible. I will also go out of my way not to move in that game, stretch the timebanks and generally avoid defeat.
You achieve little in life by quitting.
There are few things worse than a PM telling you to resign, however one of them is discussing an in progress game in a forum.
Play curteously by the rules, at least you will win respect if not the chess game.
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by invigorateAgreed. Our opponents are under no obligation to make the game easier for us or to hasten our victory. They should be doing the exact opposite. It's a competition after all.
If someone PM's me asking to resign I take offence.
It infuriates me so much I feel I must survive as long as possible. I will also go out of my way not to move in that game, stretch the timebanks and generally avoid defeat.
You achieve little in life by quitting.
There are few things worse than a PM telling you to resign, however one of them is disc ...[text shortened]... a forum.
Play curteously by the rules, at least you will win respect if not the chess game.
When and if to resign is a personal choice.
"It is inevitable that some defeat will enter even the most victorious life. The human spirit is never finished when it is defeated...it is finished when it surrenders."
`Ben Stein
21 Mar 05
Bollox.
A good chess player should know when it's time to resign.
At higher levels you will never see games like this going on and on pointlessly : you can say ''he's playing whithin the rules'' as much as you want but it's plain bad sportmanship.
Just ask yourself:''would you play again an opponent with that behaviour?''
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by RavelloThese aren't "higher levels". And if a person refuses to resign, then you checkmate them.
Bollox.
A good chess player should know when it's time to resign.
At higher levels you will never see games like this going on and on pointlessly : you can say ''he's playing whithin the rules'' as much as you want but it's plain bad sportmanship.
Just ask yourself:''would you play again an opponent with that behaviour?''
21 Mar 05
This is one of those subjects that comes up every so often here at the forums. My two cents...
A) A player has every right to play as long as he she likes
B) I feel it is in poor taste to be talking about a game in progress and/or a player who may or may not know we are ranting about them here.
C) A player can choose not to play that person again if they are frustrated by that circumstance.
...I think most here agree that the position is hopeless but a few more moves and it will be done.
I recently won a game where upon resignation the player said I should have resigned earlier in the game because my position was hopeless. And that if he hadn't made a mistake he surely would have won🙂
21 Mar 05
Originally posted by RavelloBad sportsmanship is whining when your opponent won't resign. Quit whining and go finish the job! It's an easy win, right? So what's the problem?
Bollox.
A good chess player should know when it's time to resign.
At higher levels you will never see games like this going on and on pointlessly : you can say ''he's playing whithin the rules'' as much as you want but it's plain bad sportmanship.
Just ask yourself:''would you play again an opponent with that behaviour?''
Next you'll be telling me that a football team should just forfeit the game if they're down 41-0 at the half.
Too often have I seen stalemate traps work in 'ridiculous' examples such as this. The resign-whiners aren't that easily satisfied either. The standards for a 'lost' game get slimmer and slimmer. There are people who expect resignation if they are up a piece. Does this mean the game should stop after the first mistake? Doesn't the 'winner' need to prove he can avoid mistakes himself?
I would certainly play an opponent with 'that behavior'. If he wishes to play on to the bitter end, so be it.
22 Mar 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBah,maybe you'r right but it's damn annoying when such things happens.
Bad sportsmanship is whining when your opponent won't resign. Quit whining and go finish the job! It's an easy win, right? So what's the problem?
Next you'll be telling me that a football team should just forfeit the game if they're down 41-0 at the half.
Too often have I seen stalemate traps work in 'ridiculous' examples such as this. T ...[text shortened]... ly play an opponent with 'that behavior'. If he wishes to play on to the bitter end, so be it.
However I didn't even realized that now the game is only one move to the end.................Kd3 50.Qf1#
22 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RavelloWell, spend the effort to look up Corus 2005, round 5, Anand - Morozevich. More played on many moves being two pieces down with no compensation, not even the initiative. Was that embarassing? Yes it was. Did any player at that tournament call that bad sportmanship? No. They understood that it was a (perfectly legal) way to work out the frustration of a bad game.
Bollox.
At higher levels you will never see games like this going on and on pointlessly : you can say ''he's playing whithin the rules'' as much as you want but it's plain bad sportmanship.