Originally posted by Rank outsider
Views differ on the need for etiquette, and indeed what good etiquette is. Some people (bad, bad people) think that any behaviour within the rules is acceptable.

Others compare us to other chess websites. But come on. Surely, at RHP, we stand for something nobler? Will we not rise above the base and vulgar?

Others seem to revel in the bad man ...[text shortened]... uette. If you agree with the statement, post a thumbs up. If you disagree, post a thumbs down.

How about when I resign in one of the two matches because I'm losing. My opponent should also resign in our other match that he's being slaughtered at instead of dragging on he should resign to be fair to go 1-1 instead of wasting our time to still go 1-1.

Another one when I offer a draw because I'm up in pieces to be nice and they turn it down and still play the game.

When someone lets you pass through a narrow gap, show your gratitude by taking one hand off the wheel and your eye of the road, and waving and smiling at them as you proceed.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Another one when I offer a draw because I'm up in pieces to be nice and they turn it down and still play the game.

On refusal to resign in a clearly lost position: I can think of cases in which I would not consider this inappropriate.

Example 1a: material left on the board K + B + N, vs lone K. Side with material advantage is in severe time trouble (blitz game). I would play on with the clearly lost side because the superior side might fail to mate within the time controls. It might be lost on the board but not on the clock.

Example 1b: material left on the board K + B + N, vs lone K. Side with material advantage is perhaps not familiar with the mating pattern. I would play on with the clearly lost side because the superior side might fail to mate within the move controls. Lost on the board is not necessarily won in your opponent's mind. (I'd assume any player over 1800 knows the pattern.)

Example 2: material left on the board K + 2Ns, vs K + P. I would play on with the clearly lost side because the superior side might fail to mate within move controls. Even GMs don't always get this ending right.

Example 3: Any positional or material advantage: the weaker side might play to learn 'how it is done.' The stronger side might even prefer to play on, to demonstrate how it is done; this might occur where some particularly pretty or instructive endgame is about to be reached (e.g., the Lucena Position or a smothered mating combination).

I believe these points were discussed in another thread.

As a general thing, I don't see how anyone can impute intent to annoy to a lack of movement. There might be other reasons for not moving (illness, having a real life, having a real life crisis going on, etc.). As Chess Praxis would probably say (if he hasn't already); quit yer bitchin and just mate him! If he won't move, so what. A little clutter in your 'my games' box isn't worth crying over.

Originally posted by moonbus
On refusal to resign in a clearly lost position: I can think of cases in which I would not consider this inappropriate.

Example 1a: material left on the board K + B + N, vs lone K. Side with material advantage is in severe time trouble (blitz game). I would play on with the clearly lost side because the superior side might fail to mate within the time con ...[text shortened]... him! If he won't move, so what. A little clutter in your 'my games' box isn't worth crying over.

Originally posted by RBHILL
How about choosing 4 or 5 first move openings as white instead of just doing one all the time. Example some players only do 1.e4 and others only do 1.d4