Is it rude / insulting not to resign?

[Peter Lalic]

This etiquette "grey-area" has puzzled me for some time. Obviously this question depends upon the circumstances. You can discuss among yourselves:
> how winning is the position?
> how much time remains (for both players)?
> game importance / status within match.
> the strength / ratings of the players
Etc. ...

This topic has cropped up in many games I've seen / played, and I wonder what others' views are. Thanks!

[Alex Holowczak]

I never resign unless I've lost interest in the game myself. I do speed up though, to show I'm not taking the mick.

[Peter Lalic]

I never resign unless I've lost interest in the game myself. I do speed up though, to show I'm not taking the mick.

Yes, this makes sense - I also did this recently.
I lost a piece against a 2200; early in the opening (quite attacking game, perhaps).
Obviously, I don't want to fall foul to a chess miniature. That's why I could not resign on move 12 or whatever. So instead I vow to end the game at least past move 20. So, I don't care anymore, and just sit down for a few seconds when my opponent has made his move. Then I play instantly and walk away from the board again (I am too embarrassed; I don't want others to see me completely lost like this in a 4NCL game). I just walk my king up to e4 to get checkmated at move 24. At least it was not a miniature, and hopefully he enjoyed delivering checkmate. It's not as though I wasted our time; I moved instantly.

By the way, Alex, I noticed your comment on another topic about timing and bullet finishes in slowplay games. I completely agree with your insightful comment. You are right - we should just have increments - and then bam! No more such problems, ever. Case closed. You are right.

[Alex Holowczak]

By the way, Alex, I noticed your comment on another topic about timing and bullet finishes in slowplay games. I completely agree with your insightful comment. You are right - we should just have increments - and then bam! No more such problems, ever. Case closed. You are right.

The cheque is in the post.

[Peter Lalic]

The cheque is in the post.

jejeje!

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

This etiquette "grey-area" has puzzled me for some time. Obviously this question depends upon the circumstances. You can discuss among yourselves:
> how winning is the position?
> how much time remains (for both players)?
> game importance / status within match.
> the strength / ratings of the players
Etc. ...

This topic has cropped up in many games I've seen / played, and I wonder what others' views are. Thanks!

I resign if I'm fairly certain my opponent will beat me from the current position. I take all the above factors into account when making that decision.

[Sean Hewitt]

This etiquette "grey-area" has puzzled me for some time. Obviously this question depends upon the circumstances. You can discuss among yourselves:
> how winning is the position?
> how much time remains (for both players)?
> game importance / status within match.
> the strength / ratings of the players
Etc. ...

This topic has cropped up in many games I've seen / played, and I wonder what others' views are. Thanks!

I resign if I'm fairly certain my opponent will beat me from the current position. I take all the above factors into account when making that decision.

Me too.

[Alex Holowczak]

"I resign if I'm fairly certain my opponent will beat me from the current position."

If I applied that, I'd resign on move 1.

[Peter Lalic]

The problem seems to be in some cases that some people seem to be have an unhealthily different perspective. I am 169 ECF (until the next grade comes out in a couple of weeks), and yet some opponents - even 150s - play on even with a lone king! If anything, it is just a waste of our time (although I try to play as quickly as possible). There's a limit, at which some people it seems still can't find their dignity. I wonder if anyone else has experienced this with their opponents?

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, I am one of the said 150s who play on with a lone King...

Having played junior chess in Birmingham, I realised that against some opposition, no position was truly lost. Sometimes you'd get draws when you're stalemated as your opponent is going to get his fourth queen. So I've just played everything out since then.

It also depends what type of chess you're playing. If the game lasts 7 hours, that might be pushing it. If it lasts 10 minutes or it's a rapidplay, then I don't see the harm.

I played on until the bitter end in a 4NCL game once; my opponent took about an hour to mate me when he was about four pieces up. Had to wait for a lift anyway, so it was no problem for me.

[Peter Lalic]

[quote="Alex Holowczak"]Well, I am one of the said 150s who play on with a lone King...quote]

Alex, you have perfect reason to play on the game, when facing lower-rated opposition. When you're talking about junior chess, I agree with what you're saying - many patzers can give stalemate. So you're right - it is all right to play on in such circumstances.

Also you mention rapidplay - I would agree that playing on, while perhaps -4 (according to a computer) with no play, is acceptable.

But surely you would not continue a rook down against a 170?

[Alexander Hardwick]

On this topic, I remember a longplay game from June 2009, in the CCF Summer U70 Cup. I and my opponent were both juniors, and in the era before the ECF grading shift we both had humble sub-70 ECF grades (just thought I'd clarify that ).

Having built up a promising position with the Black pieces, ready to start a kingside attack, I very cleverly blundered my queen on move 18. This is not something I do regularly! I seriously considered resigning on the spot. However, playing on at blitz pace, I somehow managed to start a kingside attack with R, B & N only 3 moves later. By move 25, I had reclaimed the queen along with an extra minor piece, and wound up with a win soon after.

> how winning is the position?

It was very winning. Or completely losing, if you like, from my point of view. This left me with a pretty nasty taste in my mouth - I felt really guilty about not resigning straight away, which I knew would have been the courteous option. I was pretty sure that I didn't deserve to win at all.

Can I ask Peter whether the factors he added in his previous post apply in this case? It was indeed "junior chess" but my opponent was certainly no patzer. Also, my opponent was lower-rated than me, but only by very few points. Any opinions???

[Jon Mahony]

I never like to see my opponent having too much fun at my expense and will generally resign a lost position unless I can see tactical tricks, or I know my opponent is not particularly skilful in the endgame.

Recently IM Richard Palliser did a simultaneous at our club, he pulled out a tactic on move 20 costing me a piece - I felt compelled to resign right there and then, as I felt it would be pure cheek to carry on a Bishop down with a Master. Several other people carried on to the bitter end with just a king and a pawn against something like rook, bishop and 3 pawns - I would have been too embarrassed!

[Peter Lalic]

Any opinions???

It sounds like you did the right thing, Alexander.
After all, the reason you sit at the board or practise chess is to win.
Thus, realistically, you should make every attempt to win. Your case differs from other cases that I dislike, because clearly:
you were capable of winning / trying to win and
your opponent was capable of misplaying the position.
Your opponent is 70-graded for a reason, and you correctly try to exploit this.
On the topic of grades, we can see that grandmasters often just resign a bad-bishop with 1 pawn less v dominating knight with 1 pawn extra. Why? Because they obviously understand what the result is going to be, and respect their opponent (who is presumably also a GM).
Alexander, at that playing level, you rightly do not respect your opponent, and test his abilities. But then we come to a sample situation... I am a rook up in a clear, harmless endgame with a some minor pieces on the board. I am graded 169, my opponent 163. He does not resign. Why? Using the logic applied to the GM games, we realized that he does not respect my abilities to win the game! This is disrespectful, when really a 160 deserves respect (I would have respected my opponent, and resigned in his position - because I have pride).
There is definitely a difference between your case and this sample one.

[Gavin Strachan]

It does depend on the ability of the opponent. Often people will see a top level game suddenly a player resigns and you can here the spectators ask why and the players reel off a long combination demonstrating the loss. Of course there have been many examples of someone resigning to early missing a drawing opportunity or even a win. Comes down to chess psychology when a player has had to defend throughout a game the win can be missed.