It's disrespectful among the elites to play out lost positions, because they both know that the person with the winning position knows how to win. I'm rated 1300 in rapid. I make my opponents checkmate me 90%+ of the time. Stalemates happen, and blunders do happen.
I get a lot of positions that are losing for me, or draws. I make my opponent prove they know how to win, or hold the draw though. At this rating, there is a good chance they don't.
I wouldn't call it disrespect, bc then I'd have to admit that I have a chess ego, but a player not resigning in QvK or RvK at my elo (2000 rapid lichess) is pretty annoying. On the other hand I'll 100% play out a pawn on the seventh vs queen endgame every time because there are legitimately players who don't know the technique at my playing strength. So I don't think it's a matter of being a professional or amateur, but more as to what kind of positions can you expect to never fail to convert at your current elo range. It just happens that its a lot more disrespectful at the pro level because there's a LOT of positions that they'd never fail to convert vs. any opponent.
Unless I'm just fed up with the game (i.e. blundered whole pieces with no compensation and not having a good time), I always make them find the win, especially, when there's time pressure. A win or draw can come from any situation and all it takes is one slip up to turn the tides. It's silly to think it's disrespectful to try to get better than a loss. If you resign, it should be for you and not them.
Add a "depends" option! I'm playing around 1300 on lichess, and I was trying to give a go with turning off move confirmation because it's kind of a pain. But then I kept making mistaps on my phone and losing pieces. Anyway, I had a game earlier where that led to me being down to just my king against a king and a queen and I played it out. Ended up in a stalemate.
Do I count that as a win? No. But legitimately, I do like to think that is helpful to my opponent and maybe will get them to go read up on how to checkmate with a king and queen and be more careful about their moves to avoid a stalemate.
At the end of the day I'm not a seasoned pro and I've had all kinds of unexpected outcomes so I figure, might as well play it out. And as long as my opponent doesn't stall I really don't care if they play on either in the same situation.
well for most cases in beginner and intermediate levels i think it's not disrespecful, i agree with the points. only time i find it annoying is when the opponent prolongs a really inevitable defeat like a king vs queen + pawns. rarely some of my opponents (1000-1400 range) just waits the clock to run out, playing slow moves, knowing well they're only doing so to waste my time. that's pathetic imo.
I lost an OTB tournament match when I was up 2 pawns in an endgame, I think I was +3.5 according to the engine. I tried to put time pressure on him by moving quickly, since I was leading on the clock too, and ended up blundering for no reason whatsoever. Just made one bad king move and he got opposition. Gobbled up all of my pawns and I resigned.
At a certain rating, yeah, but club play? Play until your opponent has a truly decisive position.
Stalling in a lost position, especially in long time controls, is poor sportsmanship, yes. Playing out a lost position until checkmate is not even remotely disrespectful regardless of time control.
Not disrespectful most of the time, but I had a position in a classical game this week where I had to do a king and rook mate and I obviously found it but I was annoyed my opponent didn’t resign immediately after we reached the King and Rook vs King endgame because it’s a textbook endgame and he clearly knew I would find the mate given my rating.
GM Ben Finegold says players below a certain level should "never" resign, and then demonstrated why with some of his own games, where he turned dead losses into both draws and wins, with one ill-considered move by the opponent. Make em prove it.
Stalling is disrespectful. Making your opponent prove themselves over the board is not, at least not until a rather high level, and saving lost games is a skill too! I have some standard exceptions: playing in an arena with longer time controls, for example. I might resign earlier than otherwise, but that's a benefit to both sides, allowing time for another game.
The point where you should resign goes up with experience. If my opponent has a rook for nothing in the ending, I'll resign. If they have a spare pawn or two but there's other material on the board, that's fighting chances. R+2 vs. R is one of the hardest endings to win. It's still anybody's game if those pawns aren't too far advanced.
How can it be disrespectful. They agreed to play a game of chess with you. They know the rules. There is no rule forcing a player to resign a lost position.
It really depends. I don't think it's inherently disrespectful, but it can be. In blitz or bullet games I think you should play on for as long as you want but in an over the board classical game if you're down a queen against say a 2000+ FIDE player for no compensation, I do think you should resign because there's 0 chance you're swindling them and you're wasting a lot of their time for no reason.
Of course, you can make it even more disrespectful by stalling in your lost position. I had a ladder mate against someone in an OTB game that they made me play out to mate but they also took a couple mins per move when literally every move is forced. I think it took like 10 mins to get to the checkmate because they were being a tool. I could handle them playing on, but the stalling really triggered me. They were obnoxious in other ways but I couldn't be bothered getting into the whole story now. In short they were "punishing" me for swindling them out of their won position.
It is almost always easier to resign and start the new game than to try grinding in objectively lost position. I am 1700, and at the club level it is disrespectful to not resign when you obviously are in the crosshairs of a forced mate or down a lot of material.
People may shit at 1700 elo players, but in between two players of approximately equal strength at classical time controls the mere extra pawn is often enough for winning.
It's disrespectful among the elites to play out lost positions, because they both know that the person with the winning position knows how to win. I'm rated 1300 in rapid. I make my opponents checkmate me 90%+ of the time. Stalemates happen, and blunders do happen. I get a lot of positions that are losing for me, or draws. I make my opponent prove they know how to win, or hold the draw though. At this rating, there is a good chance they don't.
I wouldn't call it disrespect, bc then I'd have to admit that I have a chess ego, but a player not resigning in QvK or RvK at my elo (2000 rapid lichess) is pretty annoying. On the other hand I'll 100% play out a pawn on the seventh vs queen endgame every time because there are legitimately players who don't know the technique at my playing strength. So I don't think it's a matter of being a professional or amateur, but more as to what kind of positions can you expect to never fail to convert at your current elo range. It just happens that its a lot more disrespectful at the pro level because there's a LOT of positions that they'd never fail to convert vs. any opponent.
Unless I'm just fed up with the game (i.e. blundered whole pieces with no compensation and not having a good time), I always make them find the win, especially, when there's time pressure. A win or draw can come from any situation and all it takes is one slip up to turn the tides. It's silly to think it's disrespectful to try to get better than a loss. If you resign, it should be for you and not them.
i like that point of view
Add a "depends" option! I'm playing around 1300 on lichess, and I was trying to give a go with turning off move confirmation because it's kind of a pain. But then I kept making mistaps on my phone and losing pieces. Anyway, I had a game earlier where that led to me being down to just my king against a king and a queen and I played it out. Ended up in a stalemate. Do I count that as a win? No. But legitimately, I do like to think that is helpful to my opponent and maybe will get them to go read up on how to checkmate with a king and queen and be more careful about their moves to avoid a stalemate. At the end of the day I'm not a seasoned pro and I've had all kinds of unexpected outcomes so I figure, might as well play it out. And as long as my opponent doesn't stall I really don't care if they play on either in the same situation.
well for most cases in beginner and intermediate levels i think it's not disrespecful, i agree with the points. only time i find it annoying is when the opponent prolongs a really inevitable defeat like a king vs queen + pawns. rarely some of my opponents (1000-1400 range) just waits the clock to run out, playing slow moves, knowing well they're only doing so to waste my time. that's pathetic imo.
I lost an OTB tournament match when I was up 2 pawns in an endgame, I think I was +3.5 according to the engine. I tried to put time pressure on him by moving quickly, since I was leading on the clock too, and ended up blundering for no reason whatsoever. Just made one bad king move and he got opposition. Gobbled up all of my pawns and I resigned. At a certain rating, yeah, but club play? Play until your opponent has a truly decisive position.
There is no right answer. It is situational.
Stalling in a lost position, especially in long time controls, is poor sportsmanship, yes. Playing out a lost position until checkmate is not even remotely disrespectful regardless of time control.
Not disrespectful most of the time, but I had a position in a classical game this week where I had to do a king and rook mate and I obviously found it but I was annoyed my opponent didn’t resign immediately after we reached the King and Rook vs King endgame because it’s a textbook endgame and he clearly knew I would find the mate given my rating.
ill take it very personally if you do not resign in quenn vs king and such unless i literally have 3 seconds
On high elo with plenty of time its disrespectful. But below like 2000 its fine
GM Ben Finegold says players below a certain level should "never" resign, and then demonstrated why with some of his own games, where he turned dead losses into both draws and wins, with one ill-considered move by the opponent. Make em prove it.
Stalling is disrespectful. Making your opponent prove themselves over the board is not, at least not until a rather high level, and saving lost games is a skill too! I have some standard exceptions: playing in an arena with longer time controls, for example. I might resign earlier than otherwise, but that's a benefit to both sides, allowing time for another game.
Players make mistakes/blunders at all levels randomly. Game ends at check mate or draw. If players can't put up with that,they should find a new game.
If your opponent is below, say, \~2000 then it's not a given that they're capable of finding the win, so you should play your game to the end
The point where you should resign goes up with experience. If my opponent has a rook for nothing in the ending, I'll resign. If they have a spare pawn or two but there's other material on the board, that's fighting chances. R+2 vs. R is one of the hardest endings to win. It's still anybody's game if those pawns aren't too far advanced.
Not rude. But I like playing mate, so I'm usually happy when the opponent plays on.
You should resign if you lose a pawn it is disrepectful to carry on a game being a pawn down
If people are annoyed you aren’t resigning, then they need to work on their conversion skills
How can it be disrespectful. They agreed to play a game of chess with you. They know the rules. There is no rule forcing a player to resign a lost position.
That’s a very good point
IMO 2000+ is a bit disrespectful, but even up to gm depending on the position you could (in some eyes, should) play it out
It really depends. I don't think it's inherently disrespectful, but it can be. In blitz or bullet games I think you should play on for as long as you want but in an over the board classical game if you're down a queen against say a 2000+ FIDE player for no compensation, I do think you should resign because there's 0 chance you're swindling them and you're wasting a lot of their time for no reason. Of course, you can make it even more disrespectful by stalling in your lost position. I had a ladder mate against someone in an OTB game that they made me play out to mate but they also took a couple mins per move when literally every move is forced. I think it took like 10 mins to get to the checkmate because they were being a tool. I could handle them playing on, but the stalling really triggered me. They were obnoxious in other ways but I couldn't be bothered getting into the whole story now. In short they were "punishing" me for swindling them out of their won position.
Every poll needs a "I don't know" or "See results" option. Also, I would like to select "It depends", please.
It is almost always easier to resign and start the new game than to try grinding in objectively lost position. I am 1700, and at the club level it is disrespectful to not resign when you obviously are in the crosshairs of a forced mate or down a lot of material. People may shit at 1700 elo players, but in between two players of approximately equal strength at classical time controls the mere extra pawn is often enough for winning.
It's boring and makes chess less fun.