| |
| From | Message |
|---|
bruce53
22-Mar-09, 09:54
|
 Chess etiquette....
As a new player in a very old game, I am unfamiliar with the informal rules of the game so some of my questions are probably dumb ones. My question this time: when is it proper in a friendly game to continue it when it is uneven and certainly a loss to a competent player? I realize I would have the "right" to drag it out. But if a resignation is in order, then when would one ever face a draw or, for that matter, a checkmate? I read of a resignation for the loss of a single knight in a professional game. Is that for the respect of the opponent or simple etiquette? Any comments would be appreciated....
Bruce
|
|
You have the right to play it out. If you can learn something by playing out the game, then do so. No one ever won a game by resigning. It is a breach of etiquette to try to bully someone into resigning, and if someone tries that report them.
|
bhidragon
22-Mar-09, 17:01
|
Playing for Practice
Here on GK I sometimes play on past the point where it's obvious I'm in a no-win situation. Normally though, in those situations I let my opponent know that I'm playing for the endgame practice or because it's an interesting position from which I can learn something.
I've never had anyone be anything but positive. They know I'm not just stretching the game out for the heck of it.
To be honest, I'll normally fold if I'm a minor piece down with no chance for a counterattack.
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:18.
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:18.
|
|
I do resign when a position is hopeless, but it is for my own benefit. I have only so much mental reserves and don't care to waste them on hopeless positions. I find it depressing to analyze hopeless positions and doesn't put me in the proper frame of mind for analyzing my viable games. If someone is playing on (in a hopeless position) against you. I suggest taking your time and making the strongest possible moves, it will be depressing for them.
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:19.
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:19.
|
|
A long time ago (about 15 years ago), I lost my Queen in a game but decided to continue. My opponent gave me back his queen and I went on to win the game. Define hopeless.
It's probably more of a function as to how strong your opponent really is.
But my opponent in the game I mentioned was not a weak player at all. In fact, he could beat most chess players that I knew at the time. A 1600 player (like he was) does not make those kinds of mistakes very often. I was completely taken by surprise when he accidentally dropped his queen right after I did the same thing!
What is worse is that I played the move in my head and realized my queen would be taken. Yet, I absentmindedly made the move anyway! It was a slip in communication between my brain and my hand. I suppose my opponent had the same temporary malfunction. Either that, or I simply was playing so fast that it short-circuited his synapses.
I even may a big stink verbally about making the mistake! He knew it. You should have seen the look on his face when I recaptured his queen. That moment was priceless. I was in just as much shock as he was. Neither one us meant to make any mistake.
|
cascadejames
23-Mar-09, 20:48
|
Yes, but.
Everything said above is true. Most particularly it is true that you have a "right" to keep playing.
But it is also true that there are some limits based on common courtesy and common sense. For example: I
was playing an unrated game against a player rated over 100 points below me. I was a rook and 3 pawns
ahead (8 points). I also had the advantage of two bishops on an open board vs a bishop and a knight and I
had a protected pawn advanced to the 7th rank. He kept playing. I didn't think it was very useful practice for
either him or me. It seemed like a pointless waste of time, especially since the game was unrated. I was
annoyed, and I resigned so I could devote my attention to other things.
In retrospect, he may have thought he was being courteous by allowing me to play it out to the checkmate,
but it didn't seem that way at the time, and I think many other people would feel the same.
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:19.
|
bhidragon
24-Mar-09, 07:04
|
Thinking About It ...
Several months ago, here on GK, I was on the short end of a King, Rook, Bishop vs. King, Rook endgame. Somewhere I'd read that it was pretty difficult for the strong side to force a win so I chose to fight on, spend a lot of time looking at each move, and play the best chess I could.
Well, we ended up eventually trading Rooks, giving me the draw due to lack of material.
That sort of goes against what I said before about folding when down a minor piece. That's what I love about this game ... you just can't ever know exactly what might happen!
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:19.
|
|
Live and learn!!
My philosophy is that I'm here to LEARN!! Quite often I will continue playing a game that I know I will lose only because it allows me to work on end-game ideas from my losing position. It would probably be the "graceful" thing to do to resign but I've only had one person over all the years I've been with GK pitch a fit because I wouldn't resign. It seemed like every move I made brought on a new flood of messages to give it up. Such is life. Learning, for me, often will involve continued play from a lost position and thus far, everyone has been very gracious. If I DO do that, I'll message them and let my opponent know that I'm not trying to drag the game out but that I'm just wanting to see if I can learn something by playing it out further. The fact of the matter is that I've learned about some interesting things such as skewers, discovered checks, pins, passed pawns, and even some really neat sacrifice moves. I'd rather lose and learn than win and not learn. Of course, I'd rather WIN and learn but that's not always possible. :-)
So, my hat is off to all of the players that have been gracious enough to let me continue play from a lost position.
Good day!
|
|
soujrnr...
... I don't reckon there is any graciousness in "letting you continue play from a lost position". It is your right, you are the sole judge of when you want to quit, and if it so happens that you don't lose after all: good on you!
Letting you play on without complaining about it might point to a degree of graciousness, but I wouldn't make a big thing about that, neither. No: it is no more than ordinary courtesy to play the game without any kind of remark or judgement about whether or not one's opponent ought to continue. To make any kind of comment or remark indicates that "ordinary courtesy" has given way to unnecessary rudeness.
You know: I can't help contrasting chess, among other sports and games, with golf. Now: I dislike golf, but you gotta admit, if you want to see gentlemanly behaviour (I don't know the female equivalent), and sporting courtesy, it is hard to go past professional golfers. Why can't we all be like that?
Cheers,
Ion
|
|
In a hopelessly lost position, I will sometimes continue myself. Usually I will speed things up so that my opponent will not be out of a game slot for too long. But I do have a right to continue.
If somebody complained about it, then I would probably want to slow down and wait until the very last hour to make my every move - just for spite (but I generally don't have this problem playing people at or above my current rating). When we start a game, we agreed to the time controls. They must be honored. By slowing down after a complaint, I'm reminding him of that fact without saying a word.
I show my courtesy to my opponent by speeding up instead. Sometimes I will even do conditional moves, even though it is a lost position. When you see a conditional move from me, it means I respect your valuable time - as well as my own.
|
|
Unfortunately ...
It takes me to the last hour just to figure out my moves. So I guess if I want to spite someone I'll have to Resign~!?
(Yeah, that's it ... if I Resign to anyone, its Purely out of spite. Just so you know, I was winning the Whole Time! [???] :)
|
|
Craig, that sounds like a good plan to me.
Come to think about it...that must mean that I'm very spiteful! Oh well, it beats wasting time.
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:19.
|
|
You would think ...
... wouldn't you, that these opponents might wait until the end of the game and then issue a second challenge with the colours reversed. I've had a number of challengers do that. I've never had any bang on about my failure to do so.
But it takes all types, doesn't it? And it's good exercise for one's sense of tolerance. Tolerance, if it comes easy, is nothing more than indifference ... ;-)
Cheers,
Ion
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:19.
|
doctor_knight
04-Apr-09, 14:31
|
well, I'd like to add some thoughts.
First of all, chess is competition, period. It is a lot of things, but first and foremost, it is competition. When I played tennis, one of my weakest areas was my mental game, so I did research on how to improve it. Eventually I learned various psychological tactics for controlling the rhythm of the game to help you win. Nobody really likes being victim to psychological tactics, but if you're a victim, it just shows you're an incomplete tennis player. A complete tennis player would recognize the tactic and smile at his opponent's futile attempts to get inside his head. The point is that psychology is part of competition; you cannot get past this fact.
Also, in martial arts, we learn to control ourselves before we control the opponent. In my opinion, if a chess player does not have enough self control and discipline to tolerate his opponent playing out a "lost" position, then he deserves to lose and has some fundamental lessons to learn.
Personally, I'm a stubborn individual and tend to play my "lost" games out. To some, it may be depressing to analyze or play a lost game, but to me, it invigorates my fighting spirit and activates my survival instinct; I believe it even helps me to play more ruthlessly in my other games. Like I said, chess is competition, and you have to compete! It may not seem like it, but chess is not for the wishy washy.
What does it mean if your opponent has taken several pawns or a minor piece? It means that they have proved they are capable of taking several pawns or a minor piece. Can they win the position? Make them prove it! I remember some authoritative figure in chess once saying something along the lines of, "You must beat me three times. Once in the opening, once in the middlegame, and once in the end game." I think this should be a good chessplayer's attitude. Just because you "lose" in the middlegame doesn't mean that you will lose in the endgame. Make your opponent prove his endgame technique is worthy of beating you!
Of course, for someone like winds_of_wisdom, you're pretty much guaranteed that they'll have the technique, but I would still play out a lost position against him. At least I'll learn something about technique!
Another point is that if you are known for grinding out your games to the end, you will almost always have an advantage from the outset of the game. The opponent will know that if he wins, he'll have to work for it and this already starts to grind on him psychologically. He will not have as much confidence facing you as he might against an opponent that resigns at the slightest disadvantage. Eventually, you will be respected as a COMPETITOR among those who are familiar to you (and even perhaps unfamiliar) even if you lose some. People will know you as someone who fights hard and doesn't give up and they'll respect you for this. It may even cause some chess players to attack wildly in the middlegame for fear of entering a slow end game they'll have to spend energy to grind out.
Honestly, I think some people make "rules" in order to hide their weaknesses. In fighting, some people call kicking a girly thing to do because they are too lazy to learn to defend against it. They say you have to fight manly (the definition of manly varies from person to person), but I say, you have to fight to win. If someone isn't able to deal with something like a groin strike, they shouldn't be fighting period. So these people complaining about things like not playing two games or continuing play in a lost position really shouldn't be competing in chess if they can't deal with a little bit of psychological discomfort.
Anyway, just some of my thoughts about this.
|
cascadejames
04-Apr-09, 16:37
|
What really happens?
I think that some of the answers here ignored the original question. Bruce53 said from the beginning that he understands that a player has the right to play it out. The question was one about "simple etiquette," which I take to mean, usual practice.
In fact, most people resign hopelessly lost positions most of the time, and don't require opponents to play the game out to a checkmate.
One wouldn't know that players usually resign if you were just reading the answers in this thread, but if you look at the games played by the people who answered you will find that fact confirmed. I looked quickly at many games of those who answered, but was able to find only a very few games those players lost that ended in checkmate.
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:20.
|
|
This post was deleted by tactical_abyss on 19-Apr-09, 19:20.
|
|
Well, material is not everything. What matters most is position. In a recent game with a very high rated player (much higher than me), I was down a whole Queen. After looking over the position, he politely offered me a draw. It was a forced drawn position by design. He could have made me play a few more moves to prove the half point; but he was polite enough to go ahead and accept the draw.
I have the game publicly annotated.
I took this as a sign of respect. Etiquette seems to be a by-product in large part the following of the rules, knowledge of how to actually play, knowledge of your opponent's strengths and weaknesses, the cultures from which each player identifies with, and the thirst to learn whenever possible. There really is no set formula, because it is so highly dependent upon specific circumstances and the personalities of those involved. However, one common theme seems to be respect.
|
|
...and the rest is technique!
How often have you played through an annotated game only to have the annotator declare a advantage for one side or another and then stop annotating saying "and the rest is technique!" as if the rest is just obvious and yet still a mystery to you.
Technique is simply knowing the methods of converting a won game into a win.
Intermediate players have relatively poor technique and unless they have and actually spend the time studying to acquire the necessary technique they should welcome the chance to play out won games, and learn how to close them out as quickly as possible.
|
|
Sometimes ...
It is often respect for what an opponent should know, and you think they know it. One the other hand it can be respect for self ... as in: I may or may not know how or why I got Here (this particular lost position) on this day, but it is definately Beneath Me to play out such a monstrosity as my own position!~ Hey, if its That bad, Resign it and let them think you had the flu, without having to say it. At least they will credit you with some common sense at a later meeting ...haha
|
|
Cascadejames...
... raises a fair point, but I think we all agree that it becomes a judgement call. A couple of examples where you just "know" someone has crossed the line.
One was Bogoljubow's continuing to play a whole rook down, without a shred of counterplay, in an endgame against F.D.Yates (Baden-Baden, 1925). This was the position reached after 34 moves, with White to play:
w
Rather than resign, White carried on for another 21 moves. Among masters, this would seem a bit near the extreme edge. It is possible, though, that Bogoljubow had some motive other than to make his opponent play out a clearly won game. For instance, he might have imposeed upon himself this penitence for his indifferent play earlier on.
But this next example really does go beyond courteous respect for one's opponent. It was quite a famous incident in New Zealand's chess history, though maybe the story has sunk (possibly where it ought to be) below the surface of the collective consciousness these days. A certain well known strong player, facing an opponent of somewhat less exalted status, found himself entering an ending K & R vs K & R. Clear draw - there was no feature that might hint at one side facing an obvious and quick loss (cramped position, or forced skewer, say). Do you know, that CWKSP insisted on playing out the 50 moves before accepting the draw?
Then there was the famous draw Tarrasch-Tchigorin that occurred in a very acrimonious match. I don't have the exact position, but it was something like this:
w
Having made his move, Tchigorin made the latest in a series of draw offers. Tarrasch grunted his refusal. Finally losing patience, Tchigorin grabbed his own bishop, removed it from its square, and set it down beside the board with the other captured pieces.
"Go ahead," he invited, "Win!"
In the light of the new situation, Tarrasch was finally convinced, even a whole piece ahead, he had no win!
(In this position, which might not be the actual one, the reason is this:
1.Be5 Kc8 2.Bc6 Kd7, and without any way for the WK to invade the Black position, the WB has no way of coming at Black's only weak pawn. OK, then, let White get clever:
1.Kd3 Kd6 2.Be1 Ke6 3.Bf2 Kd6 4.Be3 Kc7 5.Bxc5 bxc5, and, again, White's extra, protected passed pawn is useless, as the WK has no way to assist, nor to use it effectively as a decoy).
So there is, it would appear, to be a line somewhere. But it is so faint and subjective a line, that I am inclined to stand by my earlier remarks. There are greater discourtesies one can commit that to play on in a position one's opponent thinks is a gimme to him.
Cheers,
Ion
|
shema_yisrael
20-May-09, 15:21
|
It depends on your rating...
Given that neither player has a significant positional advantage: For players whose ratings are <1300, it's
quite possible to be down by 9 points and still recoup one's losses; for players whose ratings are <1500,
it's quite possible to be down by 5 points and still recoup one's losses; for players whose ratings are
<1600, it's sometimes possible to be down by 3 points and still recoup one's losses; for grandmasters it's
common to resign with a 1-point disadvantage. As the rating increases, the chance that your opponent will
blunder, or even err, decreases. Kasparov said something like: 'A grandmaster makes three mistakes per
game; an amateur makes three mistakes per move'! From this perspective, you insult no opponent by
assuming he will err; everyone errs. The question is: Will he err enough? Or to put it another way: Will he
err significantly more than you? As long as you have reason to believe that your opponent's potential for
err may turn the tide, keep playing.
*
But what if you have a significant material or positional disadvantage and you believe that your opponent
will not err more than you? Fischer was once asked after a game why he continued playing after it
appeared he stood no chance, and he replied something like, 'I knew it was curtains. I just wanted to see
how he would do it'. Consider your opponent to be your tutor. When the game is over, analyze it and try
to discover what you did wrong and what your opponent did right. As long as you believe that your
opponent has something to teach you, keep playing. For courtesy's sake, you might explain to your
opponent, either while playing or afterwards, that your enthusiasm to keep playing is motivated by your
admiration for the quality of his game. No one should feel offended, given that kind of explanation.
Strictly speaking, of course, you are not obliged to explain anything.
*
Poor Resaons For Playing to the Biiter End:
*
1) "I resent losing this game, and I am going to make sure that my opponent derives no joy from winning
it."
*
2) "I'm no quitter!" This is the rationale of people who drink themselves to death.
*
3) "The third reich will last a thousand years!"
*
4) "I know I'm going to lose, but I don't want to lose right now because my rating will dip. I'll wait till I
win some other game, and then I'll resign this game."
*
5) "If I keep playing, maybe my opponent will die of a heart attack."
*
Good Reasons for Resigning in a Timely Fashion
*
1) Gallantry--chess is based on war, and you would rather see yourself as General Lee at Appomattox
Station than as Hitler at the siege of Berlin.
*
2) You respect your opponent.
*
3) You respect the game of Chess.
*
4) Your opponent might be more likely to play another game with you if you haven't ticked him off.
|
| |
|
Please log in to your account to play chess online!
