Players don't realise that we have the right to play until checkmate, we don't have to resign

It's quite rare, most players have good sportsmanship and don't say anything. But sometimes they will decide that when they're winning, it's bad sportsmanship not to resign. Using the chat to tell players to resign and give verbal abuse should be against lichess policy.

Chat bans are given for accusing players of cheating, which in my view is a far lesser offence than giving out verbal abuse when you're up a piece and demanding resignations. Sometimes I wish there was a feature like there is on chess.com where you can just disable chat. There are ways of not seeing it, but no way to disable it. Players shouldn't be giving out abuse if they're up a piece and you want to play on until mate, its every players right to play on.

It's happening more and more. That's probably to do with the general decline of society than lichess unfortunately.

If you feel the content of game chat constitutes verbal abuse, report your opponent.

Switch off chat. Chess should be played in silence.
Some do not know how to convert a winning position and hope for a resignation.

@Jack_90 said ^

There are ways of not seeing it, but no way to disable it. Players shouldn't be giving out abuse if they're up a piece and you want to play on until mate, its every players right to play on.

You are totally right, and I can only abound on the previous comments. Have you tried Zen Mode ?

I faced this also, and other forms of what I would call "light-abuse" like spamming take-back requests (you can disable that also) or draw offers. I have always the same answer to this kind of behavior : ignore, report and block.

I made my mind on the typical kind of opponent doing these things :

• Probably started chess after they watched a stream or YouTube videos
• Heard online a 2500+ rated player saying that "once you are up a rook, you win the game"
• Learned the Fried Liver attack and Scholar's mate but don't know tactics or mating patterns
• Literally would give everything for a couple of rating points

You can add to that the classical cancers of our modern era :

• Wants everything now without having to work too hard for it
• Assumes that the world should ease things up for him
  ... and you have to perfectly toxic player that you want to block as soon as you spot him

@Jack_90 said ^

It's quite rare, most players have good sportsmanship and don't say anything. But sometimes they will decide that when they're winning, it's bad sportsmanship not to resign. Using the chat to tell players to resign and give verbal abuse should be against lichess policy.

While its not a strict rule you have to resign a match, its proper etiquette absoulutely. In fact, lichess gives you warnings for letting the clock run out instead of resigning in a lost position. Please resign at least when exactly you're completely outplayed, playing further does not add anything to the game, wastes both players time, and any chances of you winning is dependent on the opponent making a lousy error, or having irl issues.

Verbal abuse isn't good, but it does not seem like you encounter verbal abuse ; rather you consider all requests for resigning as verbal abuse. If a person politely asks, it's no problem, and even if someone disrespects you or demeans you, you are doing the same to them by not resigning depending on the case. Sportsmanship and etiquette aren't enforced and you don't have to follow them, but can't not expect to lose your respect in the community. Verbal abuse isn't good, but those who don't talk at all also have a bad note about you, and you definetly will have a hard time making friends.

If you have a really reasonable chance at winning or drawing, then go for it. If it's a completely lost position, please resign - instead of squeezing the last bit of elo from sudden blunders from the opponent and irl issues - you can really spend that time getting good at knowing how to actually outplay your opponents. Yes, resigning isn't a formal rule, but it is sportsmanship and not being respected and possibly facing the same toxicity in return is the price of not maintaing etiquette/sportsmanship. Again, don't get me wrong, verbal abuse is also a bad thing.

"Please resign at least when exactly you're completely outplayed"

• No, play on when you have even the slightest chance. Let your opponent work for his win.
  Here are two examples: classical time control games against top grandmasters.
  https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008376
  https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1066901

@discoooooord said ^

While its not a strict rule you have to resign a match, its proper etiquette absoulutely. In fact, lichess gives you warnings for letting the clock run out instead of resigning in a lost position. Please resign at least when exactly you're completely outplayed, playing further does not add anything to the game, wastes both players time, and any chances of you winning is dependent on the opponent making a lousy error, or having irl issues.

I disagree.

Playing until getting mated is not the same as letting the clock run. Of course stalling a game, not moving until the clock runs out is atrocious behavior and should be severely sanctioned.

But to win a game of chess, one needs to checkmate his opponent. It should be only up to his opponent and only him to decide if and when he wants to resign (no matter the reason by the way). If the position is "so winning" for one side, then it should be quick to end anyway. If my winning opponent does not know how to convert his position into a win, it's his own problem to fix, not mine, is it ?

IRL issues are irrelevant. If you start a game, it's that you have the time to play at least for the full clocks duration. If something unexpected happens IRL, you'll take a -5pts loss and deal with the more important things in life than chess.

About blunders, do you consider that opening or middle-game blunders are more valuable than end-game ones ? It would be perfectly ok for one to get a "very winning" position when the opponent makes a massive blunder, but not proper etiquette for opponent to capitalize on one's own blunder that would even the game or invert the odds in late game ?

(Please consider that I say it from my 2 months of experience, grinding around 1000. Avoiding blunders and capitalizing on opponent's ones is my bread and butter :D)

@AmiralFanchon said ^

(Please consider that I say it from my 2 months of experience, grinding around 1000. Avoiding blunders and capitalizing on opponent's ones is my bread and butter :D)

Your low rating might be the reason of our disagreement. At lower ratings, opponents make blunders frequently, and it is what that decides the game. Higher on the rating ladder, blunders turn into sudden mistakes, or mental errors rather than an inert fault of a player to learn and know how not to blunder. It's like accidentally answering 100 to "whats 77+33?"

I mentioned in my OP only in regards to the case of a position that's completely lost. As in, if an opponent has outplayed you on all fronts from start to finish leading to you being a rook or bishop down. Converting from a bishop or rook up isn't the hardest thing, you just have to continue playing and you can be playing at the same quality as your opponent, and you will end up a piece up in an endgame. At this point, any chances of winning are based on the opponent making a mouseslip, irl issue or a completely random mental error and it doesn't add anything to the game, because if you ask yourself "what was my opponents mistake?" or "how could my opponent improve from that game he almost won but lost?" then there is no answer.
At a point its like a 1% chance of you winning, and if you try for that 1% it only shows that you are greedy to squeeze the last little bit of rating you can.

In that case, letting the clock run out is the same as playing on till mate. Of course at lower levels, it's different. Again, I am assuming you to know more than your level, and understand that checkmating isn't a difficult thing at all at higher ratings.

Again, if it's just a pawn or two, and you have an attack going perhaps, then it's not unreasonable to not resign. But otherwise what I said above.

@discoooooord said ^

In that case, letting the clock run out is the same as playing on till mate. Of course at lower levels, it's different. Again, I am assuming you to know more than your level, and understand that checkmating isn't a difficult thing at all at higher ratings.

I agree on the idea that it is a matter of level (and context).

I also have the impression that we, hobbyist, may be a bit biased with what we observe from GMs.

For sure it makes perfect sense, when a GM plays 4 or 5 rounds a day during a tourney, and is completely loosing, with 99% chances that the facing GM will not blunder and convert, to resign as per the etiquette. It will allow the players more rest instead of wasting time on a game already settled.

But we are not (at least I am not) GM, and we are playing in the comfort of our house, without the pressure of a tourney, while being able to disconnect whenever we get tired. I don't feel like this etiquette applies that much in this context.

Believe me, I could not care less about my rating. For me it is just a tool that would help Lichess to pair me with people more or less of my level so there is no reason for me to greed about it, playing until the very end has a big advantage of actually being able to play an endgame.

See, when I looked for information about how to start playing chess properly, I read (and was told), that opening principles and endgames were the among the first things to learn but as true as you can practice opening in every single game, you won't be able to practice endgame if you resign before reaching it. Also, at a beginner level, the one who knows the endgame the best may have a big edge over the one who only learned a couple of traps and therefore would be happy to reach the endgame, even with a loosing position.

Anyway, I just wanted to added this couple of points but utlimately I think we agree on the importance of context in this matter. Thank you for the exchange.

"at lower levels, it's different"

• No. I presented 2 examples. Reshevsky loses his queen against Fischer and just plays on. Capablanca loses a piece against Sämisch and just plays on. That is in classical time control games.