18 Feb 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemhow does dragging a won game differ from dragging a lost game? I would think it might even provoke the opponent to play as slowly as possible until timeout.
The trick is to learn to enjoy tormenting your beaten opponents. Then you won't care if they resign or not. My favorite is promoting five Bishops or five Knights in a several-pawns-up ending.
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by yashsrWith all due respect, I don't think the comparison between cricket and chess works. We've all heard of great comeback stories in sports - 5 runs down in the bottom of the ninth, trailing by three TDs in the fourth quarter, etc. However, there is always a chance of coming back in these sports because your opponent could make errors (drop fly balls, throw interceptions), and you could get on a hot streak. However, if your (reasonably competent) opponent in chess has a Q and K vs. your K, there's no chance you are going to come up with a dazzling series of moves or that your opponent is going to commit some type of physical error. There truly is no hope for victory. Resigning is the proper thing to do in this situation.
I personally never give up..
I play a lot of cricket and I believe a person should never ever ever give up....if you know cricket, I would say even if you need 10 runs from 1 ball to win, go for a six and hope that the bowler bowls a no ball instead of giving up the match...
I believe a person has all the rights to continue a match, who says resigning i ...[text shortened]... et if not in chess, even if grand masters resign, I don't believe its a great gesture to resign
Scott
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by BishopcrwGrandmasters decide for themselves whether to resign. They don't resign because of somebody else tells them to.
Of course some people don't even think of it in terms of sportsmanship.
I played such a game.
My opponent was unaware that is actually a courteous thing to resign a lost game. He was just trying his best for the entire match.
Once I explained it to him and mentioned that the Grandmasters do it all the time. He apologized and seemed grateful for the ...[text shortened]... s may speak about other cultures)
Then presto you have a bunch of players not resigning games.
I think many people resign early because it makes them feel like a grandmaster even though they are far from one.
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by DrumboBerating other for playing within the rules is considered bad manners among courteous players.
Playing on in a dead lost position is considered bad manners among serious (good) players.
Saying "I never surrender,etc." can make you very unpopular.
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by dpressnellJust because it's within the rules doesn't mean that it's not poor sportsmanship. If an NFL team is down 36-10 with 10 second left and sitting on their own 1, it would certainly be bad sportsmanship to run three plays, calling a time out after each one. Within the rules, sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Berating other for playing within the rules is considered bad manners among courteous players.
Scott
18 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by smrex13It would be bad sportsmanship [and probably against the rules, I dunno] if they gave up and walked off the pitch though.
Just because it's within the rules doesn't mean that it's not poor sportsmanship. If an NFL team is down 36-10 with 10 second left and sitting on their own 1, it would certainly be bad sportsmanship to run three plays, calling a time out after each one. Within the rules, sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Scott
Resigning seems right when a forced mate is coming and can be seen by the loser. Anyway, how else would beginners learn if they didn't play on to the end? I agree that competent players should resign when it's clearly a lost cause.
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by smrex13Good point smrex.
Just because it's within the rules doesn't mean that it's not poor sportsmanship. If an NFL team is down 36-10 with 10 second left and sitting on their own 1, it would certainly be bad sportsmanship to run three plays, calling a time out after each one. Within the rules, sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Scott
Even in the NBA, yes, to some extent NBA teams start fouling and stalling the end of the game to try to win, but if you're down 10 points with 10 seconds left on the clock, the team will stop fouling and let time run out. Also, in professional sports like baseball, basketball, etc. it is usually physically possible for example to make a half court shot or hit 10 homeruns in a row, even if your opponent plays perfect defense. i mean, in basketball, if you play perfect perfect defense and you're opponent shoots a half court shot and makes it, there is nothing the defender can do, so you can hope in basketball that youre own physical ability can overcome your opponents perfect defense. BUT!!! chess is very different. If I have a queen versus a lone king, there is no room for an amazing move by my opponent to put off checkmate. The only way he can win is if I make a mistake. thats the difference between football or basketball and chess. in football, in theory, if playing absolutely perfectly, i can score 10 goals in maybe five minutes, if i hit all the perfect angles and hit all my shots perfectly. but in chess, if even under perfect play, i know my opponent can still easily win, barring a huge mistake, i should resign, because its no longer a testament to my ability if i win. in chess, there are many situations where one side playing perfectly can still not avoid a loss, those situations are where resignation is necessary.
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by wormwoodThe difference is that the guy dragging the lost game is in a no-win situation.
how does dragging a won game differ from dragging a lost game? I would think it might even provoke the opponent to play as slowly as possible until timeout.
It's fine with me if my opponent plays as slowly as possible. As long as he moves within the time limit, I have no problem with it. In a correspondence game, if he just hate-waits and times out, I claim the win, and I don't accept games from that person again. If I'm playing blitz on a chess server and my opponent hate-waits, I give him more time until he realizes the futility of the gesture. They always move or resign after they get the hint.
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by smrex13You must not be watching the same NFL that I watch. Seems that teams save their timeouts for desperate situations. There's no resigning in football, so why not run one last play, and at least try to reduce the margin of victory?
Just because it's within the rules doesn't mean that it's not poor sportsmanship. If an NFL team is down 36-10 with 10 second left and sitting on their own 1, it would certainly be bad sportsmanship to run three plays, calling a time out after each one. Within the rules, sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Scott
18 Feb 06
1 edit
For all of you who can't deal with the trauma of having to checkmate your opponent, maybe you should take up some less demanding game.
You decide when you resign, don't you? What give you such moral superiority that you can condemn others for exercising the same right?
For crying out loud, it's some warped mentality that "I want the win and I want it NOW, rather than waiting..."
18 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemthat's just what I don't get about resignation and chess. there's hardly a sport where resignation occurs, no matter how desperate the situation. In olympics, it's considered noble to finish the race/game even when you've got no chance whatsoever. the last poor runner on 10 000m often get's standing applause, and just today I watched 1000m skating where a chinese guy fell, hurt his hand, and continued while the audience applauded. I have no problem with people playing it to the end against me. no amount of dragging will change the outcome, so it's ok with me. I've even heard about people 'hate-waiting' in an otb-game when the opponent stopped to think 'too long' in a position. which is different from a lost position I know, but still related to how those people think. an issue of 'thought-process' if you will. 🙂
You must not be watching the same NFL that I watch. Seems that teams save their timeouts for desperate situations. There's no resigning in football, so why not run one last play, and at least try to reduce the margin of victory?
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by wormwoodBecause in chess there are only three possible scores, 1-0, 0-1, and 1/2-1/2. If you lose you lose, period. Often times, when a football team or basketball team is getting crushed, they'll take out their best players and put in second players so they get some playing time. But in chess there are no substitutions to make, no youth players who need to get experience on your team. Also, in a race, you are racing against the clock and trying to get the best time possible, which is not an option in chess. A loss is a loss is a loss, and playing in a position down a queen with no compensation will not improve your chess at all, it will probably make you worse at chess if anything. Also, in a race, your opponent isn't expected to keep running until the last runner finishes the race. But your opponent has to stay at the board until the match is done, therefore, it is polite to let your opponent go and accept that he has defeated you. Is he allowed to wait as long as possible and watch you make an obvious three move checkmate? Yes he is. Should he no? And this applies to all aspects of life. Are people allowed to sue each other for basically no reason at all? In the US at least, the answer is yes. Can people cheat on their spouses? Sure, that's their own personal decision. Are you allowed to make fun of disabled people? THe point is that no, nobody can stop you from stalling out games or playing until the last move in hopeless positions, etc. But you're still a big prick if you do.
that's just what I don't get about resignation and chess. there's hardly a sport where resignation occurs, no matter how desperate the situation. In olympics, it's considered noble to finish the race/game even when you've got no chance whatsoever. the last poor runner on 10 000m often get's standing applause, and just today I watched 1000m skating wh ...[text shortened]... l related to how those people think. an issue of 'thought-process' if you will. 🙂