I'm sick of playing against players who don't resign ultra lost positions, still playing even when just with the king against many pieces hoping for stalemate or opponent lose on time. This annoys me a lot, I lose the will of playing online chess. I believe chess is a "noble" game, (in the meaning of noble spirit) and the respect of the opponent, is an important part of this sport, chess is not (only) a game. Yes, sometimes i do it as well, it happens, I'm clearly worse and i win on time, it is part of game, but should be put a limit to this. I mean I have no problem in resign, it is a way to say to my opponent "you played better then me, i made huge mistakes, you deserved to win, and if you want give rematch".Then ok when playing bullet or blitz with no increment , if match is not decided it can be a strategy to try to play fast and win on time. My proposal is to set up a parallel rating that an engine could calculate (don't know how) that engine can tell when a position is clearly resignable, what time percentage both opponent have at the resignable position, and give fairlplay points to who playing in a fair way, like if it was an elo system, but not based in the fairplay points of your opponent, just you start from 1500 and each time you don't resign it takes like 20 points down. So you can look and search opponent based on their fairplay points. Is this too dreamy and crazy idea or not?
edit: or a easier way could be to add when report a player unfair play and the a human moderator could check and give a warning temporary ban or take out points to who plays like this.
yeah no, playing on in lost position has nothing to do with fair play at all! Players do get penalized on lichess for leaving the game or "stalling" in lost positions and might get temporarily blocked from playing. But playing on until checkmate is completely reasonable.
@adesso said in #1:
> I'm sick of playing against players who don't resign ultra lost positions, still playing even when just with the king against many pieces hoping for stalemate or opponent lose on time. This annoys me a lot, I lose the will of playing online chess. I believe chess is a "noble" game, (in the meaning of noble spirit) and the respect of the opponent, is an important part of this sport, chess is not (only) a game. Yes, sometimes i do it as well, it happens, I'm clearly worse and i win on time, it is part of game, but should be put a limit to this. I mean I have no problem in resign, it is a way to say to my opponent "you played better then me, i made huge mistakes, you deserved to win, and if you want give rematch".Then ok when playing bullet or blitz with no increment , if match is not decided it can be a strategy to try to play fast and win on time.
Most of your recent games are 3+0... when there is zero increment, of course opponents wish to win (or draw) on the clock.
What is fair and what not is always a matter of taste. Stalling (letting the time run out) is clearly impolite but is prosecuted already in some way by lichess. But not resigning?
I once saw a chess video where it was considered "very noble" that GM Gustafsson didn't resign, but let his opponent (GM Huschenbeth) checkmate him, although Gustafsson already saw he was lost. So - negative fairplay rating there?
yeah but at example, 3+0 , one player has queen and two pieces and pawns against only the king, let's say one minute on the clock for both. it is fair to play until checkmate?
anyway this happens to everyone and at any time control. Happens even in friendly matches ! (but much less frequently)
try to play anonimously without login: and without points: people just leave the game. without clicking resign button.
i wonder why and if there is a way to stop this tendency that i dislike and i believe it is bad for online chess, worse than cheating probably
I was thinking of a similar idea... But instead of having the rating evaluated by computer, you would manually evaluate your opponent's fair play rating. And to avoid haters downrating everyone they lose to, the lower your fair play rating would be, the less impact your evaluation would impact your opponent's rating... Exactly like a elo or glicko system, except one player doesn't have to lose rating in order for the other one to gain some.
1) You can't expect mankind to be smart. Even in slow arenas, people won't resign in losing positions despite harming both the opponent and themselves by loss of arena time
2) At very rare occasions, it works - which makes them feel justified for the 99 other games they didn't resign until mate
3) I find it a testimonial of having improved my playstrength in that I keep battling in "lost" positions (say, down a minor piece in the middle game) and to find ways to keep bothering my opponent on the board as much as possible. Some months ago, I would have thrown off these games right away in anger, but now I improved at swindling. Obviously, this especially applies when there's no increment. But of course, if there's no reasonable way to keep on playing and no hope for a flag, I also resign.
@adesso said in #5:
> yeah but at example, 3+0 , one player has queen and two pieces and pawns against only the king, let's say one minute on the clock for both. it is fair to play until checkmate?
fair (adj): in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
So you're asking whether a player who plays according to the rules you agreed upon is playing according to the rules?
i believe in chess there are unwritten rules. in online chess there are too many people believe is more important 5 points than respect the opponent. this is the point.
