I don't get it why is not resigning in a losing position considered by some as bad sportmanship?
Under the rules of chess last time i checked you have every right to continue on and fight to the bitter end I have played games in person where i was 2 rooks down and I still got a stalemate and another I was a queen down and i still drew.
TBH a person who is a fighter would never Resign no matter the odds against them what do you guys think?
Do you players consider not resigning in a bad position bad sportmanship? I consider kicking someone under the table, squeezing someones hard really hard, on purpose knocking over the pieces, talking during the game or touching a piece or letting it go and trying to do another move is bad sportmanship.
I find it rather rude in OTB games. But online in 5m or bullet it does not matter too much. I remember someone in an OTB game let his time run out instead of resigning a rook down. He had like 20min left so it was not long but he just sat there and he did resign when he had a few seconds left. I find it rude you should resign if you are losing.
A broad observation: Bad sportsmanship and what is allowed by the rules are two somewhat separate questions. Not everything that is bad sportsmanship is against the rules. Gloating after winning a game might not be against the rules of chess, but it's bad sportsmanship. Walking away from a lost position without resigning to make your opponent sit and wait for the clock to expire is within the rules, but it's bad sportsmanship. Etc.
In this case, no one denies it is within a player's rights to play until a definitive conclusion of the game is reached. Likewise, no one denies it is possible that a player in an objectively won position can still blunder into a stalemate or something.
But the more competent one's opponent the less likely this is, and playing on in a lost position seems to make an implicit suggestion about the competence of one's opponent, i.e. "I think you're the kind of player who will screw this up." It also feels like a waste of time playing out a game where you have already achieved a practically insurmountable material advantage.
And of course there are a lot of variables and people will draw the line different places.
#2 In a OTB tournament, if your opponent let his clock run, you can call the arbitre
It all comes down to your personal belief system. I fight to the bitter end, and always will. Opponents who think that just because they won material advantage, they are entitled to a win, are arrogant. It might take them another 40 moves to mate the opponent, and humans make mistakes, so there is a slightest of chances to equalize the game and reach a draw. And since we are on the subject of sportsmanship conduct, last time I checked, the game is not over until the clock runs out in every other sports (game) on the planet.
shymax said it best
Chess is not football or basketball where completely losing sides can rely on unbelievable comebacks to that extent. Otherwise this is either low quality chess or simply rude, as fairly stated in post #3. For GM and master OTB games even a slight, but clear positional disadvantage with equal material in the endgame is a trigger for resignation.
Why do people question how wasting your opponent's time isn't rude?
Shymax pretty much crushed it.
I expect my opponents to resign in a lost position. A lost position is a material advantage of rook up in the middle game or a piece up in the end game.
In a rook up position, I expect to win 95% of the time. I might lose 5% but likely only from losing on time. In a longer game, I would win 99.99% of the time.
This expectation comes from a desire to play great chess. I want to win the game with skill rather than luck. Yes, rating points matter to me but I want to earn my rating by playing skill-fully.
This expectation comes from playing people in clubs and competitions in real life where relationships and reputation matter.
If my opponents don't resign, I block them after the game.
