We changed our privacy policy. Read more.
67

It is totally normal, and actually, I would consider it good sportsmanship, but that is a bit relative to your level of play. Among masters, if someone blunders even a piece, they know that their master opponent will have no problem converting, so to play on could be considered rude and a waste of time. That said, they have the right to, and if they do, you ...


41

No it's not. Your opponent spent more time to reach a winning position and you spent less time to get time advantage. It's quite fair to use your time advantage over your opponents position advantage. Time control is a part of chess.


35

First of all I would consider the Preface: The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated ...


25

The first thing to note is that the FIDE Laws of Chess are silent on this. Resignation at any time in any situation is allowed and immediately ends the game: 5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game. Other methods of losing are qualified in some way. For example, checkmate is only valid if the ...


21

Yes, resigning a clearly lost game is indeed considered good behaviour. Sometimes not resigning is considered unsportsmanlike! It makes no difference on the result of the game whether you resign, are checkmated, or lose on time - a loss is a loss. In any rating system I've ever heard of, the method of losing doesn't make a difference. It's just that people ...


21

What is "unsporting"? To my mind (backed up by the two or three definitions I quickly browsed), it's mostly about behaviour. To act sportingly is to be fair and respectful, to play for the (mutual) enjoyment of the sport, and—here's the tricky part—to not abuse the rules for an unfair advantage. Unsporting behaviour in general, and the last kind ...


19

They may have made a fatal mistake and think that in another game they can win. It happens sometimes. You could make a mistake, or miss a mating pattern, and suddenly you've lost the game although you thought you were in the lead. In this case, many people may ask for a rematch because they think that they should have won and want to redeem themselves. If ...


17

Possible unsporting situations I'm thinking about: When playing bullet games online (1 to 3 minutes per side), you move a single piece many times like 1. Nf3 ... 2. Ng1 ... 3. Nf3 ... 4. Ng1 etc. (to gain some time against your opponent) When you wait to lose by time instead of resigning (to avoid your opponent to play another game and to force him to keep ...


16

Two situations I have seen in FIDE-rated tournaments: Both players making nonsense moves (mostly king moves) throughout the game. At around move 20, the arbiter stepped in and gave it a 0:0 score. [I guess they were going to agree to a draw at some point.] In this case, the arbiter didn't agree to the idea "if it's legal, then it's good". Two ...


16

Why is it acceptable to resign? Chess has its origins as a war game. It was used to model war and perhaps to play a part in the training of generals. In war it is standard practice to surrender when it is clear that defeat is unavoidable. This is an obvious humane thing to do to minimize loss of life. Crossing over into chess as the model of war this ...


15

I would never resign a game where the expected outcome is a win on time for me. Of course offering a draw is a gracious thing to do and could be considered good sportmanship, I usually only do this if I have been playing several games with this opponent and maybe chatted a bit. I would also offer a draw if the position of the game is impossible to ruin, ...


15

To follow up on Brian's answer about war, I think competitive Real Time Strategy games are a very close analogy. For those unfamiliar: In these games players typically build up bases, then build armies, then those armies fight. If one army has a decisive where the victor has enough troops remaining, they go destroy the other person's base and all their ...


12

Note that the core game of chess would be almost unchanged if it ended with the actual capture of a king rather than checkmate. In a sense, checkmate itself is a from of resignation, one that is written into the rules of the game. The game ends when the king would be lost on the next move. Resignation is just an extension of the logic of ending the game when ...


11

I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting. Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can ...


11

Resigning is considered polite in an obvious losing position among advanced players i.e. players that won't make an error, with a significant material/positional advantage and will almost positively win the game so there is no real point in playing it out. However, among beginners and less talented players, I would personally advocate never resigning as ...


10

It's more sportsman-like to resign than to play on. When you play on in the face of an inevitable loss, in effect you are saying to your opponent "I don't think you're good enough to be able to beat me, even with an extra queen." Think about it for a while, wouldn't you find that sort of arrogance offensive? By resigning, you signify your respect for the ...


10

If, as you say, you are "improving your chances", then it's not unsportsmanlike. Even if your opponent misunderstands, he doesn't really have much to complain about - if he doesn't want to play on he is free to resign. I barely care about my opponent not resigning when he should. Good, because demanding that your opponent resign IS unsportsmanlike.


10

You have no way to know what your opponent was thinking. Maybe the move was intended to be a brilliant queen sacrifice, but then he/she realized the flaw in the plan. Or maybe it was just a slip of the mouse! If it had been my blunder, I would probably have waited to see if you actually took the queen or decided it must be a trap and ignored it, but ...


9

It is good sportsmanship and your opponent would be very happy. On the other hand, you do not have to do that and are permitted to keep playing without dishonor. Indeed I saw an expert toss a queen against a lower rated player and did not resign. In the end, after a long endgame he managed to win. He kept improving his position and won some material ...


9

Most sports have a numerical end. A game of basketball ends after 4 quarters and the team with the highest score wins and a game of tennis, which does not have a time constraint, is decided when a player wins the best out of three sets. To end a game of chess, however, requires either checkmate or stalemate. Unlike other sports, there is no linear path ...


7

Winning a game sometimes gives a bad feeling when you should have lost but won on time. This is true for blitz as well as for a regular game. Losing on time is part of the blitz game. So playing on is fair in my opinion. This does not mean that you should not resign in a lost position. But you do not win a tournament this way.


7

Resigning, as mentioned by Arlen, is a respectful act. It states that you believe it is no longer worth your time and their time to play out the game. It is recommended that newcomers not resign as often as the experts appear to do. I would like to add to that answer with more of an explanation why. Often the reason is "the other person might make a ...


7

Concerning the last question, no, you will not run out of opponents. I've been playing on chess.com for about seven years, and when I play blitz I'm almost exclusively interested in having a bit of fun. If you have ever had a small match of a few games against someone online, you quickly realize that many of the games resemble a lot since it is common to ...


7

One of the main reasons could be that chess has no limit of time or "score" needed to win. The examples we see here where resigning is also good sportanship are often that kind of game (risk, real-time strategy videogames...) The point is not making the game unnecessarely long when the result is already certain


6

As a strong club player myself, when my opponent makes a brilliant combination, I sometimes give him/her (and the audience) the chance to observe checkmate for the beauty of the game. So, making useless moves isn't always unsportsmanlike.


6

I've always taken the position that it's possible, maybe even likely, that I wouldn't have been in a losing position if I had taken as much time or more than my opponent. You could equally argue that he should resign for getting a great position by using substantially more time than you did. As someone else pointed out already, the clock is part of the game ...


6

This issue is not specific to chess. In any game where it can become obvious at some point who will win or lose it is a matter of opinion as to whether the obviously losing side should quit. The side of "The loser should just quit and we should save ourselves the time or perhaps start a new game" side has fairly logical and straightforward reasoning. It ...


6

Some games, you can't just give up. For example, in a football match, there are spectators who want to see some sport, there are players who may enjoy the exercise, and there is also a question of the degree of victory counting for something. (e.g. goal ratio may act as a tie-breaker in the league.) In chess on the other hand, the value of resignation even ...


5

Your question could be answered either way, which is why the question is so interesting. I have little directly to add to earlier answers. Personally in your place, I would probably resign, but this is because I am too sportsmanlike a loser for my own good. Probably, the best answer is that one need not resign. It's a close call, though. What earlier ...


5

I think the answer to this question is bound to be subjective. You cannot expect someone to resign just because you think it is a sportsman-like act to resign a clearly worse position. Especially in online blitz games, there is no point to resign, because the time on the clock is such a decisive factor. In my opinion, not resigning is your full right and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible