And I will say yet again: It is possible to play on and still think there is an extremely low chance of winning or drawing, but see no net loss.
People seem to automatically assume that if you play on, it means that your opponent believes you can't win it, or doesn't know his position is lost. What was mentioned in the first paragraph is the possibility nobody considers.
Sportsmanship is being really polite and sweet to your opponent after and before the game. It is not making life easier for them during the game. To me, that would defeat the purpose of competition. Part of what's great about competition is that both sides are putting so much effort into their goal.
Well, for me if a player plays on in a completely lost position I do NOTassume that my opponent believes I cannot win the game. In fact, my guess is just the opposite--that he knows for sure I can win the game.
However, any player who just wants to play with he thinks of as "normal moves" in a game he is completely winning--that is his choice.
If a player plays in a creative style it is not to "show him that I can win with underpromotion" I mean, seriously, do you think someone has to show some other chess player that he can win with underpromotion?
[I think you are missing the point]
"There is a correlation between players who are willing to resign in a lost position and the chess strength of those players. The stronger you are, the more willing you are to resign in a lost position."
I couldn't agree more about correlation, but correlation isn't causation. I'm a 1900 player, and there are a lot of positions that I know I have an extremely small chance to save, but I probably play on more of them than most would.
The point is, even if I lose every, single, one of those times, even when I did play on, I am still just as well off as I would have been had I resigned them all. And if I save just one of those ridiculous positions, my approach would have actually improved my result.
With this logic, I might find myself playing on queen and king vs king even as a master, because I know that hoping for a hallucination, that will probably never happen in a lifetime, will not make the result even a tad worse.
To me, sportsmanship in chess is a lot of things but being polite before, during, and after each game is one of them assuming your opponent deserves such politeness. [there is no reason you can not be polite during a game]
In my case, playing only high rated opponents, sportsmanship is very often shown by resigning at an early point. I am lucky to have not run into problems as many others have described.
Actually, I am not sure of or do not understand "points" as a factor. Please enlighten me?"
In Team Matches it is team vs team with players on each side playing each other. Ok i will skip to the part how it involves the team. Team Points are given a Team that wins or draws. How does a team win? For game a player wins during a Team Match the team gets a win. The team with the most wins at the end wins it. 5pts per individual win by each member. In case of a draw(team) it is 2 pts per win by a member.
If you are a 1900 rate player and by your logic you want to play out any game where you have a very small chance to save. that is your choice but of course that is not what we are talking about here. The creative choice is for those games where one side or another is completely winning with no chance for the other side.
Although I am a little bewildered when you indicate by your logic you would play out a game vs a master when he has K and Q vs K. There should be some times when you consider not only your own personal results but also is your opponent's time and effort worth anything?
Yes, your style may be a very small net plus for you in the long run but is it worth it to take away some of the valuable time of your many opponents? There is more to a game of chess than how it affects just one of the participants?
I was in a game i had won by a mile. I gave a Knight to win his last leaving him with just a Bishop vs Q, B, and about 4 pawns. Now way he could mate. But later on i realized that he was going for a draw by chess.com rule......... Nasty if your not paying attention. Then i went from my attempt to force him to resign to mate without predjudice. Almost overlooked it as i wanted to torture him into resign. Back to the rule "Never assume your opponent does not see your plan and find a way to counter it".
Regarding Team matches, I was not referring to Team Matches as described.
That may take us off topic! List way to long to comment here. That subject needs a forum just by itself.
It's just that I don't consider making life easier for the opponent politeness. When someone resigns to me, I don't consider them polite, I just become relieved. Of course, it probably does mean they have faith in my abilities, but the point is, you can have just as much faith in a person's abilities and still not resign. Resigning is a sign that you think they can win it, but it is not the sole determinant of it.
Being polite during a game, in my view, would include me respectfully asking my opponent where he just moved, or not staring at him, things like this.
But making things hard for me? I don't disrespect such a person at all! I recently had a game against a player who I was up a piece for two pawns against, and he fought really, really hard. What he managed to do was to create tension, and instill nervousness in me, despite me being the stronger player.
I love this kind of intensity. That's what makes winning so great. Both sides are putting so much into the game, and it creates a thrilling sense of urgency, despite the fact that all we are doing is moving pieces around! I embrace that challenge.
Frankly, feeling an obligation to make life easier for the opponent in any way risks taking away this feeling I have described. Chess to me is like an extremely peaceful fight! We want to kill each other on the board, simply because we love the challenge and love the reward, and yet have absolutely zero animosity towards each other. I just completely separate the idea of making life difficult for the opponent with respect for them, because of my philosophy of competition that I am describing.
Now, I do resign plenty of positions; make note of the distinction between resigning, and feeling obligated to resign. I resign positions, but never because I feel obligated to do so.
"Yes, your style may be a very small net plus for you in the long run but is it worth it to take away some of the valuable time of your many opponents? There is more to a game of chess than how it affects just one of the participants?"
I consider that time to be well spent, as it was spent on the intensity of being totally consistent throughout the struggle; making sure you weren't hallucinating at any point. That kind of stuff gives my brain a workout. But of course we all have different ideas on what is well spent time.
All I can do, I guess, is assure anyone I play that I mean absolutely no spite when it comes to any position I don't resign.
I do not think I mentioned anything about feeling obligated to resign?
However, at very high levels it is a very big compliment to your opponent if you do resign early. And how you resign also makes a big difference.
I certainly do not disrespect any player who plays his hardest to make my chess game as difficult for me as he can as long as making the chess game as difficult as possible does not go to the extreme of hoping I will die or be incapacitated so he can win a completely lost game.
Often, in 15 minute games I will do something like this. 1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 and now i will play Qb5? and lose. When that happens I thank my opponent for the game and go on to the next game.
Even when I am playing a very competitve game that is unclear for both sides--I am always friendly to my opponent. In fact there have been some situations where we both annotated each move while the game or games were in progress.
But since you brought up the subject of feeling obligated to resign--yes in situations where it is detrimental to both me and my opponent if I do not resign--then I will feel in those situations an obligation to resign.
When they allowed chess to be played online this is what you get here. There was problem with it before this. How it changed?
2 players sit down and play a game. At the point if becomes obvious the game is lost the King is tilted as a sign to resign and the players set up the board to an intial situation. White moves and the battle goes on.
If you tried to go on in losing situation you would get so much trash talk from your opponent face to face. And if possible get multiple queens. In the case of playing for a team at the table take it with your coach to take it to opponent coach. They have a problem resigning simple they do not get to play in team next game. Resign was a classy way to end the game in a hopeless situation even when getting a draw was not possible. The other option was to let his/her team mates know about the situation. As your team mates would either think your a jerk or an idiot.
All this changed when the game started being played online with millions of players. Maybe the first generation of online players changed this situation.
Fix this? Should be stat on this. Number of games opponent could have resigned but did not and still lost the game. Avoid that player is an option before starting the game. Maybe this would change players on the position of resigning..... maybe not. But it would make it easier for us who do not want to put up with this method of playing when your opponent is in a hopeless situation without even the option for a draw!
What you consider detriment, I call a part of the struggle that I play chess for.
"I certainly do not disrespect any player who plays his hardest to make my chess game as difficult for me as he can as long as making the chess game as difficult as possible does not go to the extreme of hoping I will die or be incapacitated so he can win a completely lost game."
No disagreement here. I would certainly not wish death upon my opponent just to win a game. I do however like the idea of getting both our minds as focused as possible until the game is over.
Not to be too picky but are you sure you have an understanding on what I mean by detriment?
I assumed you were talking about time being spent on something that would have been preferred to have been spent on something else, whereas I think the time was instead well spent.
Over a year ago we had players use of Vacation when they were in a lost situation. Losing is a reward. ? It gives the loser something to focus on to improve their own game. The ability to determine how much stronger other players skills are compared to one owns. The opportunity to see to experience how players get their opponents in a situation they have to resign. Resign and spend that time reviewing that game not to be just clicking your mouse and getting some endurance/strength using it.
Hey a trophy should be given to players that do resign in thus situation. And the same for players that do not resign. What the name of it should be ........ Have to give it the same class as the loser laying the king on the board. Maybe a trophy of a King(falling) with a giant X on it
To me, I just don't feel the need to mate my opponent in style, or show him that I can win with underpromotion. I just do the normal things: make queens, get rid of his counterplay, say gg, and be done with it.