Opinion: getting annoyed because your opponent refuses to resign is a sign of arrogance

@coledavis said in #29:
> @forsoothplays said in 18:
> "I think it is appropriate to gently encourage the opponent to resign in the chat, or troll them a little..."
>
> I do not think that this is appropriate. It is the online equivalent of over-the-board intimidation.

What is so intimidating about "gently" or "friendly?"

Among the most satisfying memories of chess that one can possess is the memory of an opponent stubbornly and impatiently asking for a draw over and over and over and over ..... and then losing.

"Grinding" is a legitimate skill. If somebody is only a pawn or even a piece down, with less-than-imposing compensation for the loss, it can still be unnecessarily pessimistic and insufficiently resilient for that person to resign, even against a class (not synonymous with "classy") player. Not resigning against an expert or above under those circumstances is more questionable, but even then, I don't think it should merit anger and eye-rolling and loud sighs or gnashing of teeth.

Chess teaches us many things. Ideally, those include being both a good loser and a gracious winner.

It's sportsmanship to resign when you're done xxx

@forsoothplays said in #31:
> What is so intimidating about "gently" or "friendly?"
The problem is that perception what qualifies as "gently" or "friendly" may differ a lot.

What the heck if you will not win ask for your opponents resignation.

@a_Tauri said in #10:
> In Japan, it is considered a sign of bad manners to blow your nose in public. In many other places, no, no one pay attention to it.
> Like all etiquettes, they are prescriptions that are not shared by everyone. Including the etiquette of resigning in a lost position, about which there is no universal agreement, far from it. Etiquettes vary with place, community, time.
> In the mid-nineteenth century, it was considered impolite to refuse a gambit. Can you imagine the scene? 1.e4, e5. 2.f4, d5. "Rude! Lack of sportsmanship!" ...
>
> Personally, I always resign because I lose interest when I know that only a glaring mistake by the opponent could save me; But if one wants to continue to the end, I repeat, what is the problem ? The extra one-two minutes that he makes you waste ? Seriously ? If his position is so desperate, how long does it take you to checkmate him ?
> Finish him and show that it was useless to continue. Because if, on the other hand, at the last minute he manages to get a stalmate or you make a blunder in turn ( and it happens not infrequently ), then he was right and you didn’t deserve to win...
>
> Sportsmanship is acknowledging defeat when it has been definitively accomplished. For example, complimenting your opponent, when the game is over.
> It is a lack of sportsmanship to abandon the game without resigning, because it means not accepting defeat.
> Not resigning in a lost position doesn’t means anything in itself. If one prefers to play until he gets checkmated, it’s his business.

Although I have no cultural links with Japan, and did not know this rule of politeness before reading your message, I have never blown my nose in public. because it is not hygienic to release a wave of potential microbes among people.

Regarding the abandonment of games, I consider that there are two main parameters to take into account: the level of the 2 players and the event.

If you are a 1200 ranked player, you can still try to win a game if you have one less rook. because if you have lost a piece, your opponent also has a chance of losing some.

At my level, I almost systematically give up as soon as I lose 1 bishop or a knight. because psychologically, winning such a game will make me guilty and I will feel guilty 2 days after such game. I will consider myself to have taken away a deserved chance of victory from an opponent...

I don't care about the rating or winning anymore, so I guess I'm like a UFO saying that.

If it's a friendly game, you have nothing to lose or gain, so play until the end and offer your opponent checkmate luck.

In ranked game, it is more polite to give up if you are aware of the positional or material disadvantage.

in arena tournaments, it depends on your objectives, but here, I recommend that you be opportunistic when you can, but fair play when you have to. because wasting 3 minutes continuing a desperate position against a player stronger than you when you don't have the possibility of flagging is useless. But play your luck bravely and try to flag if you can is still a good option.

@forsoothplays in #31
What is wrong with 'gently' and 'friendly'? They are superficially disguising the intimidation. It's a bit like, "Can I show you the door?"

@SimonBirch writes: :"It's sportsmanship to resign when you're done xxx"

I doubt that anybody disagrees. But "when you're done" does not necessarily mean "when your opponent thinks you're done."

If I drop my queen through oversight (not a deliberate sac) against even a half-decent player, of course I will resign.
But when I am teaching chess to minors, with some of them I start by playing without my queen to begin with, playing in the old style to give them a handicap! And I'm not about to resign on the first move!

Yet against, say, Smyslov, I'd resign if he frowned at me. Even when he was an old man.

But not everybody is Smyslov. And I've lost plenty of times after my opponent had already dropped a pawn accidentally. And vice versa.

I can't remember the last time Smyslov resigned when I asked him to. :-)

i think renaming fischer random wasnt very nice