is it bad etiquete to aim for a stalemate when you're clearly down in material/about to lose?

I feel like the need to mention, stalemate should be
@gs003 said ^

@gs003 playing on in a losing position means less fun for both sides compared to an equal game and neither side is gonna really learn anything from it, at least not more than an equal game. So what do you choose? Fun and actual st...

if you resign and move onto the next game, it is more fun and better use of time for both you and your opponent and by not resigning you are making less use of your and your opponents time.

@gs003 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/cmn2dFym) > > I feel like the need to mention, stalemate should be > > @gs003 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/fF4ZXPGT) > > > > > > @gs003 playing on in a losing position means less fun for both sides compared to an equal game and neither side is gonna really learn anything from it, at least not more than an equal game. So what do you choose? Fun and actual st... if you resign and move onto the next game, it is more fun and better use of time for both you and your opponent and by not resigning you are making less use of your and your opponents time.

Panagrellus

@discoooooord said ^

What's more fun? An equal game, with equal stakes, and a dynamic, flourishing middle game? Or a game that is basically already decided, you already know who will 99% chance win no matter what they do?

I note the discussion shifted from "what's good etiquette" to "what's fun".
And in terms of fun, few chess situations match a hilarious stalemate of a lone king against 25 points of material. (;
There are so many unexpected stalemate constellations, with the king wedged in between squares controlled by knights and/or pawns and/or the other king etc.; I often have to laugh out loud when reaching a stalemate position under time pressure. Even if it's me who is at the suffering end of the stalemate. (;

@discoooooord said [^](/forum/redirect/post/SppLLaM2) > What's more fun? An equal game, with equal stakes, and a dynamic, flourishing middle game? Or a game that is basically already decided, you already know who will 99% chance win no matter what they do? I note the discussion shifted from "what's good etiquette" to "what's fun". And in terms of fun, few chess situations match a hilarious stalemate of a lone king against 25 points of material. (; There are so many unexpected stalemate constellations, with the king wedged in between squares controlled by knights and/or pawns and/or the other king etc.; I often have to laugh out loud when reaching a stalemate position under time pressure. Even if it's me who is at the suffering end of the stalemate. (;

ThreeSadPandas

In the Autumn Marathon for example I played terribly (I know people, I know...) and pulled out the stalemate for 1 point

https://lichess.org/game/LGpASjcv

In the Autumn Marathon for example I played terribly (I know people, I know...) and pulled out the stalemate for 1 point https://lichess.org/game/LGpASjcv

discoooooord

@Panagrellus said ^

What's more fun? An equal game, with equal stakes, and a dynamic, flourishing middle game? Or a game that is basically already decided, you already know who will 99% chance win no matter what they do?

I note the discussion shifted from "what's good etiquette" to "what's fun".
And in terms of fun, few chess situations match a hilarious stalem...

These are in puzzles bro. Composed puzzles. In real games, this happen 1% of the time. And if you are playing on for stalemate, there is even a 2% of the opponent actually stalemating you.

@Panagrellus said [^](/forum/redirect/post/NI3XeOlX) > > What's more fun? An equal game, with equal stakes, and a dynamic, flourishing middle game? Or a game that is basically already decided, you already know who will 99% chance win no matter what they do? > > I note the discussion shifted from "what's good etiquette" to "what's fun". > And in terms of fun, few chess situations match a hilarious stalem... These are in puzzles bro. Composed puzzles. In real games, this happen 1% of the time. And if you are playing on for stalemate, there is even a 2% of the opponent actually stalemating you.

Panagrellus

@discoooooord said ^

In real games, this happen 1% of the time.

Depends on the time format and the rating bracket. In bullet among patzers like me, stalemates are quite common. (But I'd agree that's not "proper chess".)

" And if you are playing on for stalemate, there is even a 2% of the opponent actually stalemating you." - well that doesn't matter, does it? stalemate is always a tie.

@discoooooord said [^](/forum/redirect/post/J8AOp54d) > In real games, this happen 1% of the time. Depends on the time format and the rating bracket. In bullet among patzers like me, stalemates are quite common. (But I'd agree that's not "proper chess".) " And if you are playing on for stalemate, there is even a 2% of the opponent actually stalemating you." - well that doesn't matter, does it? stalemate is always a tie.

discoooooord

@Panagrellus said ^

In real games, this happen 1% of the time.

Depends on the time format and the rating bracket. In bullet among patzers like me, stalemates are quite common. (But I'd agree that's not "proper chess".)

" And if you are playing on for stalemate, there is even a 2% of the opponent actually stalemating you." - well that doesn't matter, does it? ...

There's a 2% chance! That's how much I care about a few elo points! I NEED to win this specific game instead of moving onto the next game which would both help me learn chess better so I get actually better at chess to win more games

@Panagrellus said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ZtoDKs2A) > > In real games, this happen 1% of the time. > > Depends on the time format and the rating bracket. In bullet among patzers like me, stalemates are quite common. (But I'd agree that's not "proper chess".) > > " And if you are playing on for stalemate, there is even a 2% of the opponent actually stalemating you." - well that doesn't matter, does it? ... There's a 2% chance! That's how much I care about a few elo points! I NEED to win this specific game instead of moving onto the next game which would both help me learn chess better so I get actually better at chess to win more games

Toscani

edited

Clocks were implemented to determine a winner, so there is no need to resign.

Just as you are paid for the work you do, a win in chess is earned through checkmate. The time between the start and the end is the effort required to earn that victory.

A stronger player should lead by example: play the game to the very end and finish what was started. If high-rated players demand that lower-rated players resign, they are not respecting them. The word "play" should actually mean something. Play on!

You should only resign when you've had enough of your opponent's abuse.

What some seem to want online is an automated resign button. The moment a "lower rated player" blunders, the resign button is pressed.

Clocks were implemented to determine a winner, so there is no need to resign. Just as you are paid for the work you do, a win in chess is earned through checkmate. The time between the start and the end is the effort required to earn that victory. A stronger player should lead by example: play the game to the very end and finish what was started. If high-rated players demand that lower-rated players resign, they are not respecting them. The word "play" should actually mean something. Play on! You should only resign when you've had enough of your opponent's abuse. What some seem to want online is an automated resign button. The moment a "lower rated player" blunders, the resign button is pressed.

LastIterator

...force a stalemate...bad etiquette...

Something like that Kasparov once tried to sell to a younger opponent. In 1988 Kasparov played a clock simul against six promising young American chess players at the Russian Tea Room in New York. After 14 moves (?), Edelman claimed a draw by threefold repetition, much to Kasparov's annoyance. Kasparov was visibly annoyed and told him: “You have white, you have to play. That is my opinion, sorry. When I was young I would never have missed a chance to play the World Champion.” Kasparov even offered to continue the game, but Edelman declined. No such rules or unwritten code of conduct exist, nor have they ever existed. It’s amazing what ridiculous ideas people come up with. Viktor Korchnoi once threw a tantrum after losing a blitz game to Sofia Polgar, declaring that it would be the first and last game she would ever win against him. Apparently, losing to her was easier than accepting that she could beat him. Why should it be any different among ordinary players than among the greats?

Polgar vs Kortchnoi

> ...force a stalemate...bad etiquette... Something like that Kasparov once tried to sell to a younger opponent. In 1988 Kasparov played a clock simul against six promising young American chess players at the [Russian Tea Room](https://russiantearoomnyc.com/) in New York. After 14 moves (?), Edelman claimed a draw by threefold repetition, much to Kasparov's annoyance. Kasparov was visibly annoyed and told him: “You have white, you have to play. That is my opinion, sorry. When I was young I would never have missed a chance to play the World Champion.” Kasparov even offered to continue the game, but Edelman declined. No such rules or unwritten code of conduct exist, nor have they ever existed. It’s amazing what ridiculous ideas people come up with. Viktor Korchnoi once threw a tantrum after losing a blitz game to Sofia Polgar, declaring that it would be the first and last game she would ever win against him. Apparently, losing to her was easier than accepting that she could beat him. Why should it be any different among ordinary players than among the greats? [Polgar vs Kortchnoi](https://youtu.be/TxeiGipoFSE?si=JQfvRbj4COJjAi19)

gs003 edited

@Toscani said ^

Clocks were implemented to determine a winner, so there is no need to resign.

Just as you are paid for the work you do, a win in chess is earned through checkmate. The time between the start and the end is the effort required to earn that victory.

A stronger player should lead by example: play the game to the very end and finish what was started. If high-rated players demand that lower-rated players resign, they are not respecting them. The word "play" should actually mean something. Play on!

You should only resign when you've had enough of your opponent's abuse.

What some seem to want online is an automated resign button. The moment a "lower rated player" blunders, the resign button is pressed.

this is exactly right with one exception: not specific to lower rated ... but on a low chance of cm. on lichess random play the engine usually matches people with similar skill levels. My question is not on tournaments/arena.

@Toscani said [^](/forum/redirect/post/5YbvZoja) > Clocks were implemented to determine a winner, so there is no need to resign. > > Just as you are paid for the work you do, a win in chess is earned through checkmate. The time between the start and the end is the effort required to earn that victory. > > A stronger player should lead by example: play the game to the very end and finish what was started. If high-rated players demand that lower-rated players resign, they are not respecting them. The word "play" should actually mean something. Play on! > > You should only resign when you've had enough of your opponent's abuse. > > What some seem to want online is an automated resign button. The moment a "lower rated player" blunders, the resign button is pressed. this is exactly right with one exception: not specific to lower rated ... but on a low chance of cm. on lichess random play the engine usually matches people with similar skill levels. My question is not on tournaments/arena.

gs003

@discoooooord said ^

I feel like the need to mention, stalemate should be
@gs003 said ^

@gs003 playing on in a losing position means less fun for both sides compared to an equal game and neither side is gonna really learn anything from it, at least not more than an equal game. So what do you choose? Fun and actual st....

we have different definitions of "fun", and that's fine.

though i dont think one should be harassed for playing on or expected to resign when down on points. to be clear my question is not on tournaments/arena, and remember that lichess random play matches players on similar levels = (i see your other cmoments on percentegaes etc). I know my chances of cm are low, but i still have a chance of stalemate or winning by time, it's in the rules. and what i gather from everyone's coments, it's allowed.

@discoooooord said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ykvvuwv7) > > > I feel like the need to mention, stalemate should be > > > @gs003 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/fF4ZXPGT) > > > > > > > @gs003 playing on in a losing position means less fun for both sides compared to an equal game and neither side is gonna really learn anything from it, at least not more than an equal game. So what do you choose? Fun and actual st.... we have different definitions of "fun", and that's fine. though i dont think one should be harassed for playing on or expected to resign when down on points. to be clear my question is not on tournaments/arena, and remember that lichess random play matches players on similar levels = (i see your other cmoments on percentegaes etc). I know my chances of cm are low, but i still have a chance of stalemate or winning by time, it's in the rules. and what i gather from everyone's coments, it's allowed.