lichess.org
Donate

Low elo resignation etiquette

#21
@Toscani said in #13:

> Ranked from most to least ethical:
>
> 1. Resigning by conceding defeat is graceful;
> 2. Mutual agreed draws is useful;
> 3. Three fold repetition is forceful;
> 4. Claiming a draw by rules is when the above 3 are not applied;
> 5. Insufficient material to mate, should hasten an end game;
> 6. Timeout losses or wins are the least satisfying way to end a game.

Strange phrasing, losing/winning by timeout can be embarrassing but it's not unethical. Resigning for a low rated player is also a bad idea, it's essential to finish the game to maximise learning.
#22
On the last tournament i had a chance to observe two another players where one of them was definitely loosing. But the other winning one couldn't find an obvious way to finish the game, then he blundered and sides have changed, now the second one was absolutely winning, but he didn't manage it either and blundered again, so sides changed one more time. I was shocked but i got shocked even more when a game have been finished with a stalemate.
They were both higher ranked than you. So make your conclusions
#23
Have you listened to post #20. There is a question that was clearly asked, obviously for a reason !! A response was given. Why do you think the question was asked? Can someone post the game, so that others can fully understand why the question was asked. Was the game a draw because is was the only possible outcome? If so than it could have been maybe declared a dead position. See we need to see the game before making conclusions. Just like we need to read all the post to see who is trying to answer the op's initial question.

Any chess player has the choice of continuing to play or not as long as they follow the rules. I don't wait to be respected, I give it out like a handshake. It takes years to gain a reputation and can quickly change, if others manipulate our words.

Do players want to test the knowledge limits of their opponents or do they want to play the chess position? OTB, I no longer play the player, I play the chess position. If the position is a draw, than it is what it is. If it's a lost game and I have no hope of a draw, I won't try to win on time. I want the game to be respectfully satisfying for both me and my opponent. I don't want to play a "dead position" with insufficient material to checkmate, just because I have more time on my clock than my opponent. There are chess rules reference many things including dead positions.

If you don't aim to win by all legal means possible, you probably won't end up first in the standings. For some, there is no room for empathy in chess. It's a competition and they are either there to have fun or there to work things out until they win. Talk to an arbiter if the opponent is not putting some effort to win. If it's not possible to win by normal means, then declare the game drawn. I believe that's ethical and is following the laws of chess.

www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf
... Article 5: The completion of the game ...

As chess players, we should be trying to encourage a mindset of fair play, sportsmanship comes to mind. Be considerate for others, rather than having a "let's see the win" mentality. Even if you disagree, keep treating others with dignity and respect.
#24
Magnus Carlsen's reply in comment #20 is indeed interesting but we should not forget who is giving it. It's the world's best player and to get to this level, you need very specific attitude, you need to be kind of ruthless. In a sense, it reminds me what players of the era said about Ivan Lendl, world's best tennis player for the substantial part of the 80's, who was not very popular among them and is remembered as not very friendly (to put it mildly): they remember that he used to play even exhibition games with full effort, just as they were official tournaments, and his reasoning was that he did not want to allow his opponents to start believing they could actually beat him. I guess it's part of what brought those guys to the top spot - but I'm not even sure even all world's best players were like that.

And I'm even less convinced that this reply is really relevant for us. There may be some exceptions, highly ambitious players, but I believe that for most of us, chess shouldn't be just about getting the best possible result at any cost. At least for me, it isn't.
#26
@Toscani yes agreed to checkmate and it’s not over untill it’s over. Ive won/drawed many games that the opponent should of had an “checkmate” but they ended up losing. Here is an example from today. I was down a piece and should have lost but I played through and ended up winning the game lichess.org/gxlUAEZe/white#110 now imagine someone lower rated how common it is to win lost game
#28
@MuaddibX said in #1:
> Hi, I'm going to be playing in my first over the board tournament in a week. I've only ever played online. I'm expecting to get thrashed by my opponents and was wondering what the etiquette is for resignation.
>
> Is it rude of me to force the player to convert the their advantage to a checkmate? From my PoV it's still instructional to see how to convert the advantage to a win, but I can understand my opponents being annoyed.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts!

In the first OTB rated tournament I played in, the very first game I was crushed by my opponent, he was winning by a landslide, but on the last move, he touched a pawn, then grimaced, because it made the game a stalemate.

I say at low level, play on. Got me 1/2 point, who knows what it will do for you?
#29
@MuaddibX said in #1:
>Hi, I'm going to be playing in my first over the board tournament in a week. I've only ever played online. I'm expecting to get thrashed by my opponents and was wondering what the etiquette is for resignation.
>
>Is it rude of me to force the player to convert the their advantage to a checkmate? From my PoV it's still instructional to see how to convert the advantage to a win, but I can understand my opponents being annoyed.
>
>Thanks for your thoughts!

what tournament is it?

Depending on the strength of the players it can be different.
#30
@SimonBirch said in #9:
> Well for one and sorry if this seems rude but you're going into the tournament with completely wrong mindset. Your letting your opponent beat you in the tunnel like Man Utd playing Accrington Stanley you're going in with the mindset you're going to lose, go in with the mindset at least you'll play your best and give them a damn good game and ask them some questions about their play C'mon don't be so defeatist. Play to destroy them with your brilliant style of play , really man come on don't lose before you've made first move xxx

I can only agree with what you said there, mindset is the most important thing! I was playing in an OTB torunament, it was the second to last round, i played with the white pieces, but i had a losing mindset, gess what: I lost! Your mindset should be: "I am going to do everything i can to get the full (half) point"