|
|
Post by perseus on Nov 14, 2005 18:25:56 GMT -5
Some players play on when they have not got a chance. I admire their perserverance, and it could be rewarded by a blunder by the player with the advaatage.
If I am in a hopeless position, I am apt to give up if the opponent has not got an elegant mate in a short duration?
Do players really want to go through the procedure, if I get tricked or make a blunder in the opening again?
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare on Feb 4, 2006 11:47:19 GMT -5
Its there right to play on.  |
|
|
|
Post by Wookiee on Feb 4, 2006 20:38:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by reyn on Feb 4, 2006 22:36:40 GMT -5
Some players play on when they have not got a chance. I admire their perserverance, and it could be rewarded by a blunder by the player with the advaatage. If I am in a hopeless position, I am apt to give up if the opponent has not got an elegant mate in a short duration? Do players really want to go through the procedure, if I get tricked or make a blunder in the opening again? The choice is theirs, of course. There's no rules stating that they must resign. It wouldn't be the first time that I've had over-whelming odds to win, and because I was stupidly not paying attention and being over-confident, that I blundered into a stalemate, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by torphichen on Feb 4, 2006 23:51:23 GMT -5
I am with Perseus on this one.
Is the delay of a inevitable loss worth the slim chance of a few rating points on the assumption that the person who has outplayed you so far is so bad at chess that they cannot to convert the position?
Personally I prefer to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and will resign when I believe a position to be irretrievable (time scrambles and tricky technical endings like QvR excepted) but if the answer is ‘yes’, by all means continue. It does rather put your own play during the game into perspective though and resignation due to shame shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
However, if you do go on to lose, you will have insulted your opponent, wasted their time and lowered their respect for you as a chess player with every extra move you make. Admittedly, on the last point, once you make it to 7 or 8 extra moves you may as well continue as respect will already have reached zero.
Playing on to allow a pretty execution is fine, it even happened in a GM game where Donner had been so impressed with his ops play that he felt it was deserved. Imo it is usually better to resign as soon as it is clear that mate is on the way, again because of the respect it shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by yitwail on Feb 5, 2006 8:53:40 GMT -5
This is a judgement call, but resignation is good sportsmanship when a player badly outplays another through superior skill. A long time ago in a tournament, I was facing an overwhelming attack and a mate seemed inevitable, when my opponent left his queen hanging. I then spent about 10 minutes pondering if I should snatch it and get an undeserved victory, or perhaps resign and pretend I didn't see the blunder. I finally took it, and my opponent refused to talk to me. After that experience, I'd like to think that I give my opponents the benefit of a doubt & resign before something like that can happen.
|
|
Johnny5
Junior Member
Johnny5 is alive!!!!!
Posts: 89
|
Post by Johnny5 on Feb 5, 2006 9:32:54 GMT -5
This is a judgement call, but resignation is good sportsmanship when a player badly outplays another through superior skill. A long time ago in a tournament, I was facing an overwhelming attack and a mate seemed inevitable, when my opponent left his queen hanging. I then spent about 10 minutes pondering if I should snatch it and get an undeserved victory, or perhaps resign and pretend I didn't see the blunder. I finally took it, and my opponent refused to talk to me. After that experience, I'd like to think that I give my opponents the benefit of a doubt & resign before something like that can happen. Surely if you have the chance to win you should no matter how you do it. It doesn't matter how well your opponent plays, if you get him in checkmate, you have played better, even if you made lots of mistakes and your opponent only made one. It's the one that matters!  |
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on Feb 5, 2006 9:51:26 GMT -5
In general I will resign oncw my position becomes hopeless. On some occasions, however, I have played on - these being the type of endgames I am still struggling to learn how to play properly. Even then I will tell my opponent what I am doing and make sure they don't mind waiting for their win. If they said they did mind then I would resign, but nobody ever has. A wee bit of politeness goes a long way!!
|
|
|
|
Post by torphichen on Feb 5, 2006 10:53:09 GMT -5
That is a good idea tumshie. Nobody would take umbrage at your continuing in those circumstances.
I would also add that I would probably want opponents to prove they know endings like QKvRK, NBKvK and a won QPKvQK as many players neglect to learn the techniques as they occur so infrequently. I once saw an elo 2200 fail to convert NBK, which is almost criminal in an international tourney.
To be honest, yitwail, if the person acted like that afterwards I am pleased you did take it. They cannot blame you for their stupidity.
As you say earlier in your post it is good sportsmanship to resign but, compared to continuing in a hopeless position, it is even worse sportsmanship to spit the dummy like that. Had they just laughed, called themselves an idiot and resigned, I am sure you would have felt even worse about your extra point.
|
|
|
|
Post by reyn on Feb 5, 2006 11:45:40 GMT -5
Generally, I agree that resignation is a judgement call. I'm more likely to resign early than not.
BUT, I tailor my resignation to each game. If it's a tournament game, it's almost guaranteed that I'll resign early. If I'm playing against a friend here, often we'll play it out, unless it was a real bad mistake, like a triple fork!
If I'm playing a single game against an unknown quantity, and it becomes rapidly obvious that my opponent is the better player, I'll resign "out of respect".
Of course, that's not to say that my opponent couldn't have blundered. Blundering is part of the game whether it's correspondence or OTB chess. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of someone's mistake. That's chess, like it or not. I've blundered many, many times, and I didn't get all upset because my opponent went on to win because of it. I do get mad at myself for being so stupid and careless. That's life.
Either way, I treat each game and opponent as a different example.
|
|
|
|
Post by bellesbabe on Feb 5, 2006 12:42:49 GMT -5
Freedom of speech, also goes for freedom to play on.  |
|
|
|
Post by reyn on Feb 5, 2006 14:50:20 GMT -5
Freedom of speech, also goes for freedom to play on. Either way, there are no rules in chess as to when someone must resign. Therefore, it is up to the individual, no matter which way you look at it. |
|
|
|
Post by perseus on Mar 24, 2006 20:00:20 GMT -5
Etiquette over the board in serious matches. No talking, no grunts or whatever ... what about talking about the game as you play..
"Oh nuts!"
"That's correct terminology (for someone without English as their first language).
|
|
Blockhead
Full Member
En passant ...
Posts: 167
|
Post by Blockhead on Mar 25, 2006 8:50:17 GMT -5
Surely if you have the chance to win you should no matter how you do it. It doesn't matter how well your opponent plays, if you get him in checkmate, you have played better, even if you made lots of mistakes and your opponent only made one. It's the one that matters! Like any formal game there are two components: 1. The conduct of the game itself, and 2. The game result. The formal historical record will usually only show 2. Those who present, players and perhaps spectators, will have a perception of the quality of the game that far transcends the actual result! At the highest level of the game, some of the greatest games are drawn. For myself, I have a vivid memory of several games, some won/lost OTB and CC which the mere recording, the simple scribing of the result could never capture the feelings experienced during the game! The game is about struggle. Without this essential 'fire in the belly' emotional/cognitive struggle the game should be given over to silicon! It would be endlessly content to simply record the results. Heart beat or CPU? Forget the result, forget your grade. Play and delight in the game for it's own sake! "if you get him in checkmate, you have played better" No, not so J5. It simply shows you have won the game, got the point. Your checkmate, the final move of the game, gives absolutely no indication of the quality of the game itself! "On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long." Emanuel Lasker |
|
