36 ( +1 | -1 ) If your losing badly you should resign!It is out of respect to your opponent that if your badly losing you resign. I'm currently playing this person on gk i have 2 rooks bishop 5 pawns and king vs (he has) bishop 3 pawns and king. His position is not good his pawns are not close to advancing, he has no chance of winning so why does he play on? It is a simple win so for all those who get such positions it is the right thing to do resign!
92 ( +1 | -1 ) Thereis only one right way to treat people, that is to treat them the way you want to be treat by them.
Over the almost 40 yrs I have been playing, I have played many bizarre behaviors, but more nice people :-)) It is not understandable why people want to behave such as: to keep moving in a totally lost positions, or do the same thing and wait to the very last minute with there moves. We all know it is "painful" to loose a game of chess, but after all it is just a game, its not your life :-)) Be a decent and polite player, it feels great to treat people decent and chances for the will do the same to you is BIG :-))
However, there are unfortunately some players there is neever seems to learn this, simply stop playing them, put them on you ignore list, simple as that :-))
176 ( +1 | -1 ) "Having said that, I HATE when people play fiercely when they think theyre up then let time run out when their attack fails."
I feel the contrary. When it is about win or loose, one thing that I'm not comfortable with is the time control. I know that everyone can be better if they are given more time to think. This is a correspondence chess site anyway. The strategy to play in a correspondence is different with that in a blitz. What do you feel if both of you and your opponent are playing quick chess, and when you are in a losing position he start to think like in a correspondence chess? I don't know how you feel about that but you sure know my point.
But I also understand the feeling of some others like gibo. That's one of several reasons why I intend to play in tournaments only, plus any challenges if available. If your opponent play too long in a tournament, it doesn't have to bother you. Your game limit is not affected, and you cannot go to the next round when other people's games have not been completed.
I spent a lot of time in a game sometimes simply because I don't have suitable time to think even when I want to. A game may look like a serious game but it is no different with blitz!
I think it is a good idea if GK also provides suitable time control for someone like gibo, noobler and me. With limited time control, I can be assured that it is a fair play, and nobody get hurt :)
54 ( +1 | -1 ) Oh and... I know this site from gromanswe. In several of his games he named the game with "Quality game - Think for A Week!". So you know that not everyone requires a quick game in GK!
Gromanswe invited me to challenge him but I didn't have a convenient time to think in a quality game so I postponed my challenge. I don't want to give him a game of blunders. That will waste his time ;)
55 ( +1 | -1 ) keiserpaulthat is correct, but at least you will only have to put of with these ignorants in tournaments.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to point out, that it is perfectly legal to use all your time for moving and you should do in complicated positions and it is also perfectly legal to play till your checkmate, but don't be dissapointed if your are one these players that doing so in lost positions and nobody really wants to play you due to this behavior.
Best wishes Cairo
48 ( +1 | -1 ) I found it an unnecessary headache when 2 of my opponents started to use up all their time, when they were lost. The pattern was different before I had such clear advantage.
The most annoying thing was that I played two games against one of the opponents, a game which I played on in a good pace untill I resigned. Now he can't do the same back?
Anyway, I decided to offer them draws and get on with other games instead of getting upset over nerds.
42 ( +1 | -1 ) ButI cannot understand why people just can't resign as they should, instead of falling for pressure on forums or whatever.
I would never play most of the topplayers that I have seen. Partly because they all keep playing in lost positions, partly because I'm not good enough and partly because they use up all their allowed time until mate (I'm aware 2 melt together).
67 ( +1 | -1 ) HmmSome people actually play to learn, not to win. I have learned more playing out losses by seeing how my opponent finishes and different tactics he or she uses than I ever will from any book. I actually can't stand when people resign. I don't know how many times I've looked at high ranking players here to study some games and find that every single game is resigned with half the board left because they are down a center pawn or a knight! Yes, technically if you are down a rook or a knight you should lose if your opponent makes no mistakes, but what do you learn from quitting???
37 ( +1 | -1 ) yah..I like loosing more then winning... I learn nothing from a win. I also like playing loosing endgames, especialy when my opponent is only a pawn up with a rook each. A lot of the time when I am loosing big time I may still find a way to stale-mate or force draw, of course usually not with more seasoned players...
76 ( +1 | -1 ) indy"What do you feel if both of you and your opponent are playing quick chess, and when you are in a losing position he start to think like in a correspondence chess? "
I get your point but perhaps I phrased badly. If a game is 14 days per move by all means take it. I have no problem with people using the alotted time for each move, or suddenly slowing down because the position got complicated. I'll even be more than happy to reinstate should they time out for any reason and wish to continue. More often than not I'm actually impressed not annoyed when someone presses on in a "hopeless" position.
It's letting a game time out intentionally because you're not winning anymore instead of simply resigning I have issue with.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) nooblerIt is an easy position, just one move available and your opponent uses up 14 days to take it while you see him move in other games where he is better off. That is ridiculous.
I talk about patterns. I accept a pace, but I despise change of pace when after 45 moves, with 20-25 to mate your opponent, decides to slow down without explanation.
165 ( +1 | -1 ) PyrcroftWell the point is they are high ranking players. They already know how to win with extra piece :-) If they know the game is lost and there is nothing to learn anymore, why go on? It is much better to resign and spend the time for rematch.
Generally speaking, I suppose there are many reasons to continue in hopeless positions or even play till mate. Example - lets assume you have K+R vs K. Now if I have such position, I resign. Why? Because I know I will lose and I will learn nothing by watching my opponent mating me (I already know how to mate with rook!). Of course I understand if one doesnt really know how to mate with rook, we have a different case. Still, IMO one SHOULD resign unless there is a reason to believe that _opponent_ might not know how to do it :-) IMO its a bit unpolite to force your opponent to go trough a trivial ending for learning purposes.
Then again some people actually want to mate their opponents! So, before calling anyone rude or unpolite, consider the possibility that perhaps your opponent simply wants to be polite.
So far only one of my opponents has played till mate, and I guess he simply wanted to wrap up the game quickly without taking the joy of checkmating from me. No prob. Now the people who drag the games on purpose are something else - these folks use full 14 days for pondering the only legal move in hopeless position, postpone the game when losing, let the time run out after realizing there is no way to save the game. Luckily most players here have good manners.
122 ( +1 | -1 ) Sometimes people play on to learn from a better player. IMO this is not rude. However it might be considerate to let the other player know this is what you are doing, and thank them before you finally do resign.
I often slow down when the game is close, complex or I am losing but I think the position is not irredeemable. This is not to be rude or unfair to my opponent, but because I wish to consider my moves more carefully. On occaision I have even got busy or miscalculated and had a timeout on these games (on each occaision I apologised and offered to reinstate the game so my opponent could beat me twice though).
I think people should refrain from complaining about actions that are totally within the rules, or presuming to know their opponent has malicious motives for taking such actions.
For example, when I began playing here (not knowing chess ettiquette) I thought it might be considered rude to resign and deprive my opponent the satisfaction of the checkmate! I am glad my opponents were more tolerant of my begginers ignorance than some of you!
It is only a game, and if you are going to win, you are still going to win, whether it is in a moment or in a few days. Why let such a small thing upset you?
9 ( +1 | -1 ) If the time controlIs 14 days per move (plus postponements) it might take more than few days :-)
But it really isin't nice if players play in complete lost posotions, but i also understand that it is legal.
It's also understandable that someones play to learn (dont we all?)
Myself, i often resign often if i lose more than one rook.
250 ( +1 | -1 ) Internet is different then OTBWhat is a lost position?? What I see as a lost position my opponent may see as an equal position. REMEMBER... there are different levels of skill out there. Just because you KNOW that a position is lost does not mean that your opponent is at the same level you are. He may really think he has a chance. Even amongst GM's there are debatable positions. How many times have you read one GM commenting... "the position is totally lost" ...while another GM comments... "The position is equal" ...while another GM comments... "slightly better for black" ...while the next GM comments... "slightly better for white". Everyone might see the position differently.
However, I must agree with lespaul's statement that it does become irritating (and possibly impolite too) when the opponent waits to the max time control for every move.
Also, Internet Chess is different from OTB Chess. There are positions that I would play on in here in Internet Chess that if it were OTB... I would resign immediately!! See...
puchu - mercy mercy - puchu indianking - mercy
...for examples. Although I lost one of the ones against Puchu, later I found my mistake and found that I should have drawn. Also, take a look at my results. 20 draws! Some of those draws were what I would call lost positions, yet... there they are drawn. Internet Chess gives one the ability to practice something that you dont get to practice too much in OTB... DEFENSE!!
If you get into lost position in OTB... you resign. In Internet Chess... you have the opportunity to look harder at the position. You can move pieces around... back and forth trying out different defenses, you can read books about defense, take a day or two with the position... you can make the best moves while there is a chance that your opponent (thinking it's an easy win) may not always make the best moves. I didnt get 20 draws for nothing.
P.S. Hello Soren! I'm still waiting for our game.
31 ( +1 | -1 ) On the question of the ethics (and aesthetics) of resignation, if one's opponent makes a particularly beautiful, difficult sacrifice of, for example a major piece, if we can see that we have lost should we 1. resign straight away 2. give the opponent the satisfaction of demonstraing the most complicated line 3. play it out to mate or one move before?
90 ( +1 | -1 ) MercyGood point - it is true the concept of "lost position" (in practical play) depends on skill level. However I have to disagree about OTB/GK. Yes in correspondence games one has more time and the possibility of moving pieces around etc - and that is exactly why it is HARDER, not easier to "save" lost positions. The point is one can never save a lost position unless opponent screws up! OTB there is less time, blunders are more likely - especially in time trouble even most primitive swindling might work. Perhaps your opponent is tired? nervous? But here he has days for each move. He can analyze the position whenever he wants. Move pieces. Consult books and databases. In the end of the day no matter how well you play in lost position, unless your opponent blunders, you will lose. To put it simply, compared to OTB it is less likely he will throw away a won game.
33 ( +1 | -1 ) The impoliteness primarily consists of depriving the opponent of the chance to play a new game due to constraints on the number of games that can be simultaneously played. For myself I am quite happy to resign a game that I feel is finished, regardless of whether it is myself or my opponent who I judge to have lost, in order to be able to begin a new game.
33 ( +1 | -1 ) Ya know what...If you have a problem waiting 14 days for a player to make a move, do not accept or propose games that have 14 days per move. If you can't wait 3 days, go play on yahoo. This is just so silly to me. If it's so rude, the rules should be changed instead of people complaining about people who follow the rules.
51 ( +1 | -1 ) Ther's a big difference between 3 and 14 days. On Yahoo they dont play chess, they try to win on time to boost a meaningless rating. This is a community and it's members should support and respect each other. One time at Itsyouturn I resigned all the games that my opponents were hopelessly playing on in, I was amazed that they complained saying things like "I'm just practicing". What on Earth is there to practice? Start another game and practice in a socially responsible manner.
231 ( +1 | -1 ) PyrcroftWas your post responding to my comments? If it was...
First of all I am not going to Yahoo. Also I believe you failed to see my point - the only thing I am complaining about is people who PURPOSELY and NEEDLESSLY drag the games. In any situation that does not fit to the given description, by all means use full 14 days to find the best move you can. Keep fighting as long as you believe you have hope. If you believe it is polite to play till mate, please do!
Let me quote myself:
"Now the people who drag the games on purpose are something else - these folks use full 14 days for pondering the only legal move in hopeless position, postpone the game when losing, let the time run out after realizing there is no way to save the game. Luckily most players here have good manners."
You know some time ago I was playing on a server a bit like Yahoo and my opponent disconnected after realizing he was lost. I saw no rule saying anything about disconnecting, so I suppose it was ok? I guess next time I play OTB and end up to a lost position, instead of resigning or finishing the game I will leave the table and let the time run out (serves him right!). Hey Im just following the rules, I tell him to quit OTB and go to Yahoo. Shake hands after the game? You wish, there is no rule forcing me to be polite.
Get the point? Chess is a game of gentlemen (and women!). Rules can never cover everything, it will always be up to the players to maintain an enviroment where everyone can enjoy playing and meeting new chess friends. OTB you meet people face to face and surprisingly I have never witnessed the internet-style antics described above. I wonder why? Here at GK people have better manners than on any other chess site I know. Hopefully an infection of "anything goes as long as they dont ban me" disease will not ruin it.
As long as you try your best to play a friendly game of chess, respect your opponent and strive for good manners, great. But if a chess player (mis)uses the rules to "avenge" the oncoming loss to the opponent, then and ONLY THEN I will object. Even if - technically speaking - the player in question is following the rules.
Speaking of Yahoo, I hope you havent learned your interpretation of rules and good manners from there.
Yours sincerely, Peppe
29 ( +1 | -1 ) Playing out a game to learn...I don't really understand this one. Once a game is "lost", then you should give up, and learn from the mistakes that caused you to lose.
Playing it til the end, will just have you playing out a lost game, and therefore developing little stragey to help you in other games?
126 ( +1 | -1 ) peppeI was not responding to you! I was just responding. I don't know how many times someone says to me to hurry things up. Often times, I work and come home tired and choose not to play chess. One time I played on day while sick and lost every game I played (Not that day, but I made like 10 stupid moves and ended up screwing myself). I don't know how you would have proof that someone is purposely taking their time. Perhaps if someone made a dumb move and is down a piece they take some time to analyze a move, analyzing how if they were in that situation they would capitalize. That's how you learn from losing. I have not played many people who I feel would have played slow purposely. As someone said earlier, most people on here are very curteous, even downright nice. By all means, if someone has proof that someone is doing that, report them. Perhaps they should look into making the minimum being one day for people who perfer to play faster. My only point is, unless you have proof that someone is playing slowly on purpose, people have no right to complain.
8 ( +1 | -1 ) BTW...I hate yahoo...that was a joke. Hope it wasn't too offfensive peppe :)
74 ( +1 | -1 ) PyrcroftOk, no prob my friend!
But I hope you arent misunderstanding my comments because it is not about playing slowly. Asking someone to move faster is unpolite. But, to give you an example - say your opponent has only one legal move before inevitable mate and he comes online many times, makes moves in his other games, but refuses to make the only legal move. Then postpones his games, still not making the move, and finally - lets his time run out, losing the game after you have waited 44 days for one single move (and perhaps an opportunity to challenge new opponents after you no longer have maximum number of games in progress). Then I believe we are talking about cases I was referring to in my previous posts.
21 ( +1 | -1 ) I tell my studentsNEVER resign, because being under 1000 rating, they have much to learn in a lost game, even when overwhelmingly so. For someone at my rating level, it is a different story.
240 ( +1 | -1 ) "But, to give you an example - say your opponent has only one legal move before inevitable mate and he comes online many times, makes moves in his other games, but refuses to make the only legal move. Then postpones his games, still not making the move, and finally - lets his time run out, losing the game after you have waited 44 days for one single move"
From your record peppe_l, if such thing really happened to you, I believe that he was trying to wait for you to accomplish your provisional period. This is because loosing from a provisional do more harm to your rating.
My favourite defense against strong players had been Nf3 (King's Indian) against d4/c4 and c5 (Sicillian) against e4. I had only used Sicilian once against Cyrano. When I think my opponent is not so strong I will always reply e4 with e5. When I think my opponent is weak (or I underestimate him), or I'm just gambling, I don't really care with my moves in the opening. This is because if I move properly based on theory, my opponent may pick the answers from a database, leaving me with a boring endgame.
Oh-No! What was that paragraph for???
In my game against hariseldon, I picked terrible moves in the opening. When I checked his record, I found out that he's a serious player. Provisional with limited games but high rating. Still in the opening, the position was symmetrical, the material was equal, but for players of my strength, it was enough to know that I was in completely lost. I could see my pawn undefendable and the game was too positional to create complication. I sent him a message telling him that I was so sorry but I intended to use up my time in each move in that game, or if he objected he could over me a draw. Later in the process, I went back and forth to see his profile, hoping that he had completed his 20 provisional games. But he played so slowly! I had lost my interest on the game and made quick moves after limited amount of time left. I wanted to resign but still hoping him completed his provisional. But fortunately, I forgot I had games here and I timed out!
I'm a bad boy, aren't I, peppe_l? :)
29 ( +1 | -1 ) i seewell, this thing is happening to me right now. i'm in a winning position and my opponent takes all his time for each move maybe he was just waiting for me to finish 20 games so that it will not hurt his rating more. well, in that case i'll slow up my other games to get back at him.
74 ( +1 | -1 ) I think beginners, and even good players who don't play in clubs or study chess serioulsy, are just not familiar with the convention or ettiquette of resigning is a lost position. It's not obvious really. Think of other sports. I've never seen a tennis match where a player in a hopeless position resigns. They always play it out right to the final point. If Agassi is up 6-0, 6-0, 5-0 against an unknown player, is it an insult to Agassi that he has to play the final game? Should the losing player give up? I think it would be regarded as bad sportsmanship for a tennis player to resign a match.
I'm not saying you shouldn't resign in chess. But because resigning is uncommon in other sports, people new to chess may find the idea strange.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) Indiana-jayNo, luckily such thing has never happened to me here. I can see your point about ratings, but what if all opponents wait until provisional period is over? It will take a long time to establish rating here :-)
To me rating is not so important (GK rating system is unreliable anyway), so I dont really care if I lose to underrated players.
And yes, you are a bad boy :-)
150 ( +1 | -1 ) You got a good observation there noswonky. If it is true that there is a convention or etiquette to resign in a lost position, that should not be an excuse to force other people to resign, however bad the position. I’m a kind of person who thinks a lot about philosophies in life. I’m trained, educated and conditioned (by myself) to accept only the truth, and opinions do not create a truth. You may have your opinions, others may have different opinions, and it has been always like that.
Do you think it is ethic if I challenge highly rated player like Cyrano to a game? Do you think it is ethic if he resigns our game? Etiquette is just etiquette. I’m trained not to take other people’s property or any kind of rights, not even as small as giving a player a chance to finish his game (I’m not giving him, it’s his from the beginning). I’m also trained not to hurt other people without good reason. You can hurt people by un-wisely rejecting challenges even you have the rights to do so. You can hurt people by “yelling” (whatever form it takes) because he doesn’t resign, even if you had the rights to do so.
May be it is true that everyone gets only what he deserves. You cannot expect that everyone in GK is as good as you are, as educated as you are. The truth is some people are better, some are worse than anyone of us. There’s no way you can create a harmony with such diversity unless each of us has a sense of forgiving.
18 ( +1 | -1 ) peppe_l "... but what if all opponents wait until provisional period is over? It will take a long time to establish rating here :-)"
Unfortunately not everyone knows that! ;)
47 ( +1 | -1 ) What can you learnWhen you are down to nothing against an arsonal? I have no problem when there is play, but I hate opponents who play out to mate. When challanged, I always check the players past game history. If they do not resign, I decline the challange.
I would love to start posting games that should be resigned. A little humiliation may help.
Again, I am not talking about games with play left. You can learn from those.
101 ( +1 | -1 ) TO ALLAT st, petersburg 1914 Capablanca vs, Lasker in the final after about the 30th move capa tried for another 70 moves to convert his slight material advantage into some clearly won ending . failing to do so he had to concede the draw --, info from page 173 of EMANUEL LASKER , The Life Of A Chess Master . now at this level you would think way before move 100 that capa would have abandoned the game as a draw .I am fairly confident that Lasker knew it was a draw way before then .So why did capa quote waste LASKER'S TIME for another 70 moves ? so if its a matter of people playing on when they should abandone the game as a draw or a loss. seems capa is guilty also. huh ???their may be as many reasons for playing on as their are players ! capa's reason was simply he needed that win !!! If I play on in a losing situation you may be assured its not to aggravate my opponent but instead to learn from him!!! and i have done plus will continue to do so !! yours bluebabygirl
124 ( +1 | -1 ) Oh no! coyotefan, you are playing with so many novices! Don't you know that when I was a kid (I'm not much better in rating than 10 years ago), all I know about this game is to play it out till mate? There was some kind of ecstacy to mate even with a Rook and a King! And nobody had ever complained about that either. GK players just came from all over the world, coyotefan.
There is a probability that whenever you start a "war", your opponent will "accept" that war. For example, you may say "Hey, you are loosing, can't you see that?" and he may postpone his moves till the last minute and even postpone his game. You may then humiliate him by posting his game on forum, and then he start to send messages like "FY!". That is how The World War began. ;)
There are also many ways of learning that you may have not thought of. In one of my game, I'm letting the game end in a pawn endgame. This endgame was my weakness and I want to see if I can fix that. In my other games, I try to give a quick look at the position and make a move based on general pattern, not an exact calculation as done by computers.
50 ( +1 | -1 ) Also... In my game with zamolxes (12th Tournament), I wanted to prove my hyphotesis that most of gambit is useless in a correspondence chess. I took 1 pawn sacrifice and with an extra careful defense I should be able to save the gambit for a win (Of course I would have lost if it were OTB). And of course he doesn't have a right to complain if I think on this game a lot more than I think on my other games.