If I'm bad enough to blunder my queen, and my opponent is rated the same as I am, then my opponent is bad enough to blunder their queen right back.
@imaxwell that's not how chess works, my friend. If Super-GMs were thinking like this, why barely end their games with check mate? It's common sportsmanship in chess to admit your mistake unless you got a reasonable amount of compensation, which is barely the case after blundering your queen.
I think anybody is allowed to continue the game as long as possible, just dont use an inappropiate amount of time. If the game is completely lost it wont last long anyway so its okay for both sides.
I gave my opponent 2 extra hours when he rage quit this bullet game 6 seconds in...currently 90 mins left before he flags :-)
@Gusticus why would you do that to yourself? xD
What if he comes back and moves and you have 1 minute to his 1 hour of time?
What if he comes back and moves and you have 1 minute to his 1 hour of time?
@AcademicNinja99 @pinkbishop It was just an unrated game, and he did time out, hopefully fuming and trying to work out why he couldn't start another game for a couple of hours :-)
@Gusticus
Actually no, he has been offline on Lichess for the past 2 hours so he couldn’t care less xD
Actually no, he has been offline on Lichess for the past 2 hours so he couldn’t care less xD
@AcademicNinja99 oh well at least I tried :)
@ChessAddict1337
Unforced one-move blunders happens at all human levels. (E.g. Aronian recently blundered his queen for nothing against Carlsen, some missed mate in one in Ivanchuck vs. Anand, etc.)
Then further there are forced mistakes, made because the opponent puts you in a difficult situation where a correct move that doesn't lose is difficult to find; or forced/unforced two-moves blunders, etc.
Hence we deduce: to maximise chances of winning (or drawing lost positions) never resign.
Note I am not trying to quantify how much you would win/draw more (on average), instead of resigning positions that you evaluate to be lost. This is a difficult thing to do.
Thus all remarks about the frequency of such situations being negligible are not concerned here (although I question how one derives some percentages). In particular one gains nothing by distinguishing short- and long-timed games, noting en passant that the "never resign" policy is more effective in short-timed ones.
Hence in brief if someone plays to maximise their win/games ratio they will not follow "ethical" advises about resigning etiquette, regardless of their rating.
Is there some other argument that doesn't rely on how one thinks the game ought to be played?
Some people play for learning, some for fun, some for getting rating points, some always strive to find the best moves (and will even maybe solve more problems than actually playing), etc.
Unforced one-move blunders happens at all human levels. (E.g. Aronian recently blundered his queen for nothing against Carlsen, some missed mate in one in Ivanchuck vs. Anand, etc.)
Then further there are forced mistakes, made because the opponent puts you in a difficult situation where a correct move that doesn't lose is difficult to find; or forced/unforced two-moves blunders, etc.
Hence we deduce: to maximise chances of winning (or drawing lost positions) never resign.
Note I am not trying to quantify how much you would win/draw more (on average), instead of resigning positions that you evaluate to be lost. This is a difficult thing to do.
Thus all remarks about the frequency of such situations being negligible are not concerned here (although I question how one derives some percentages). In particular one gains nothing by distinguishing short- and long-timed games, noting en passant that the "never resign" policy is more effective in short-timed ones.
Hence in brief if someone plays to maximise their win/games ratio they will not follow "ethical" advises about resigning etiquette, regardless of their rating.
Is there some other argument that doesn't rely on how one thinks the game ought to be played?
Some people play for learning, some for fun, some for getting rating points, some always strive to find the best moves (and will even maybe solve more problems than actually playing), etc.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.