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

Playing on if you have a 1% winning chance absolutely is something you are entitled to do, and indeed what you are encouraged to do by any good coach (Or is my low rating also the reason I see it that way??). (Not to mention that this is such a poorly constructed criterium that if I interpret it verbatim, I should resign in a position where my opponent has an h pawn and a wrong color B against my lone king in the corner, because I certainly have less than a 1% chance of winning that!

Now, at some point, it can become ridiculous to play on, but it is not when you can still imagine winning or drawing chances... I do not advocate playing on until mate in all positions... I advocate playing on until you can no longer even imagine how you might win or draw.... At the 1000 or 1200 level, that often means playing on until your opponent mates you, because I have seen 1100 players blunder stalemate in a Q up ending many times, so I can imagine that. At the 2000+ level, that does not happen unless extreme time pressure is involved, so yes, if you are down a queen for no compensation and your 2000+ opponent has 20 minutes left on his clock, it absolutely makes sense to resign. (Even then, you are under no obligation to do so, but from a practical point of view, it is probably a better use of your mental resources to resign, and refocus on the next game, especially if you are playing more than one game a day).

Indeed, I was arbiter at a FIDE OTB event earlier this year where white played a move which causes forced mate in 3 (both players were low rated, but that is not really relevant to this story), and the opponent starting thinking. After a minute or so, white got frustrated and said 'its mate in 3' (I heard this, and considered intervening, but decided to let it slide, as he did say it softly and politely). Another 30 seconds later, he said something more like 'its obviously mate, resign already', at which point I stepped in, and issued him a formal warning for disturbing his opponent during his thinking process, and informed him that if he spoke to his opponent again during the game, I would interpret it as a draw offer, that his opponent could accept or reject... His opponent then thought for another minute or so, and played 'the best' move (other moves were mate in 2, instead of 3), and then resigned after whites next move.

I do not know if black had fully realized it was mate in 3 or not... But it does not mater. White's behaviors was unsportsmanlike, independent of blacks reasons for wanting to play on.

@tpr said ^

"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.

Appeal to Authority. My point still stands. Plus cherry picking, You brought up, two examples of GMs not resigning, what about the other 99% of games in all of which they resign out of respect? GMs aren't inherently the best practioners of etiquette, most GMs games period do end in resigning out of respect, your argument doesn't make sense at any level. The actual posted opinion of most GMs is actually the same as mine, but forget that since its also an appeal to authority.

Also, my point isn't that its different at lower levels, it's that its proportional to your level. Even in a lower level match, it makes sense for someone to resign when chance of winning falls below a threshold. Its just that its far harder for someone to not have an actually valid winning or drawing chance to win, because beginners often dont know how to checkmate and often stalemate. As soon as you reach a level where opponents don't hang pieces and know how to checkmate, there comes scenarios where you should definetly resign, for example the captcha puzzles here.

@AmiralFanchon said ^

"In that case, letting the clock run out is the same as playing on till mate. Of course at lo...
... happy to reach the endgame, even with a loosing position."

I agree, and people do have the right to not resign and should have the right always. But simillarly, people like me have the right to point out the breach of etiquette. It is etiquette, and if you don't then of course you're gonna get called out and hated, whether silently, politely or with verbal abuse which again I don't promote.
And it absoulutely does depend on level and all, but Im saying regardless of level if the odds of winning falls below like 5%, then it makes no sense for someone to play on. Depending on level, that may be being a queen up, or a rook up or a bishop up.

@CG314 said ^

Another 30 seconds later, he said something more like 'its obviously mate, resign already', at which point I stepped in, and issued him a formal warning for disturbing his opponent during his thinking process, and informed him that if he spoke to his opponent again during the game, I would interpret it as a draw offer, that his opponent could accept or reject...

Wow... Article 12.9 gives an arbiter rather wide spectrum of penalties to apply but this is definitely not one of them.

"You brought up, two examples of GMs not resigning"

• There are many more examples. My point is that if a grandmaster plays on in a losing position against a top grandmaster and in classical time control, then lower rated players should play on as well, even more in shorter time controls.
  Here is another example; white is a GM, black an IM, classical time control. Black plays on until checkmate.
  https://lichess.org/broadcast/fide-world-senior-championship-2025--open-65/round-8/5cSMOvEA/IPHHGsjg

"they resign out of respect"

• They do not resign out of respect, they resign because they lost all hope of drawing.

"its different at lower levels"

• Lower levels should play on even more in losing positions.

"it makes sense for someone to resign when chance of winning falls below a threshold"

• No, resign when the chance of drawing is zero.

@CG314 said ^

Playing on if you have a 1% winning chance absolutely is something you are entitled to do, and indeed what you are encoura...
....Now, at some point, it can become ridiculous to play on, but it is not when you can still imagine winning or drawing chances... I do not advocate playing on until mate in all positions... I advocate playing on until you can no longer even imagine how you might win or draw.... "

Yes you can play on for that slim chance and I agree that the player should always have the right of choice. But it does break sportsmanship and even your own interest at a point. You agree that it's practical to resign past a point to conserve mental resources, I would add that past that point the game is also not exactly interesting or fun. When past a point where the game is fun or any interesting at all, I can ask my opponent politely to resign. And beyond that point, I also have the right to condemn that act of my opponent as unsportsmanlike.

Yes, theres examples where it seems like one side is winning, when the other is, I don't argue against those circumstances. I am arguing in a completely clear and concise scenario, at the absoulute extreme where your eventual loss is almost certain DEPENDING on your opponents capacity. If you really think that a player might not be able to convert a position, I'm not even against that.

However, the OP seems to be saying that players shouldnt ask at all their opponents to resign, and if they do its considered verbal abuse, the OP also implies that the act of criticizing an opponent for not resigning is not right.
Verbal abuse of any kind isn't good of course, idk if the OP actually encountered so, but within a civil manner, (and without trying to coerce your opponent into resigning,) I think its very logical and understandable to criticize your opponents for not resigning as to my above points.

@discoooooord said ^

Yes you can play on for that slim chance and I agree that the player should always have the right of choice. But it does break sportsmanship and even your own interest at a point. You agree that it's practical to resign past a point to conserve mental resources, I would add that past that point the game is also not exactly interesting or fun.

It's not fun for the losing player. If it's not fun for the winning one, it's usually a sign that it's not as hopeless as he/she would like to believe.

When my opponent keeps playing in a totally hopeless position, I take it as a challenge to find the most efficient way to either win or convince them they do not want to play this game any more. But only on the board and certainly not like:

When past a point where the game is fun or any interesting at all, I can ask my opponent politely to resign.

Because that's something you should never do, except, perhaps, in a casual game with a good friend.

"the player should always have the right of choice"

• Yes

"it does break sportsmanship"

• No

"I can ask my opponent politely to resign"

• No, you should stay silent.

"condemn that act of my opponent as unsportsmanlike"

• No, fighting spirit is laudable.

"your eventual loss is almost certain DEPENDING on your opponents capacity"

• I presented 3 examples where the loss was inevitable against a grandmaster.

"think that a player might not be able to convert"

• Do not think, let him demonstrate it.

"players shouldnt ask at all their opponents to resign"

• '11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.'

"its considered verbal abuse"

• Yes.

"criticizing an opponent for not resigning is not right"

• Yes, it is unsportsmanlike.

@discoooooord said in #5:

... 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. ...

@tpr said in #6:

... 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 in #8:

... 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. ...

@tpr said in #10:

"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.

It seems to me that the context of the game matters.
If tournament prize money is at stake ...
If it is a team event where participants are depending on their companions to do their absolute best ...
Well, those are examples of one sort of situation.
If it is just a random lichess game with nothing at stake other than a few lichess rating points ...
Well, that seems to me to be quite a different situation.

@mkubecek said ^

Another 30 seconds later, he said something more like 'its obviously mate, resign already', at which point I stepped in, and issued him a formal warning for disturbing his opponent during his thinking process, and informed him that if he spoke to his opponent again during the game, I would interpret it as a draw offer, that his opponent could accept or reject...

Wow... Article 12.9 gives an arbiter rather wide spectrum of penalties to apply but this is definitely not one of them.

Well, I have had relevant conversations on the rules with many other arbiters, including two have acted as arbiters at Olympiads in the past, and they disagree with you, and see this type of decision as within the arbiter's (pretty broad) discretion...

There is rules committee guidance (and was explicitly told to us during various arbitor training courses) that 12.9.4 "increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game" should be interpreted as "up to the maximum" even though that is not verbatim stated (in fact, in the German and French language translations of the laws, it even says up to the maximum), and that it, combined with 12.9.5 allows the arbiter the discretion to award any of the scores 1-0, .5-0, .5-.5, 0-0 (or colors reversed) that they deem appropriate.

This is combined with the question of what communication is allowed with your opponent. While the laws themselves are pretty vague in that they only really say that distractions are not allowed, it is common interpretation of arbiters that the only sanctions communication with your opponent are: Announcing check, 'J'adoube (explicitly only allowed if its your turn to move), offering a draw, claiming a draw (which is first and foremost a draw offer), resigning or, when stopping the clocks, stating your are summoning an arbiter. Any communication should either be one of these, or is a distraction...

Since there was no check just played, and it is not white's turn, the first two cannot be the case, and he is not stopping the clock to summon an arbiter, so anything he says must be a draw offer, or resigning. (Indeed, the interpretation that anything said other than check and J'adoube may be interpreted as a draw offer is not an on common happening in amateur events with many participants who do not share common languages, and often don't recognize the not very well standardized formulations of draw offers.

I am certainly not arguing that mine was the only (or even necessarily the best) way to deal with this situation, but according to all my training, and to discussion with colleagues, it was well within my discretion.

That's way too creative

@CG314 said ^

Any communication should either be one of these, or is a distraction...

I don't dispute that, it's certainly a distraction and should be handled as such. What I disagree with is the right to deliberately interpret the distraction as something the player clearly did not say.

There is rules committee guidance (and was explicitly told to us during various arbitor training courses) that 12.9.4 "increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game" should be interpreted as "up to the maximum" even though that is not verbatim stated (in fact, in the German and French language translations of the laws, it even says up to the maximum), and that it, combined with 12.9.5 allows the arbiter the discretion to award any of the scores 1-0, .5-0, .5-.5, 0-0 (or colors reversed) that they deem appropriate.

Here you are ignoring the fact that at the moment the game has not ended yet. To end it, you would have to apply 12.9.6 ("declaring the game to be lost by the offending player") or 11.7 ("persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess"); while it also allows you to decide the opponent's score, it does not allow you to give half point to the offending player. (And even if you wanted to combine different penalties, neither 12.9.4 nor 12.9.5 say anything about increasing the score of the offending player.)

And you didn't even say you would do that. You said that you would misinterpret the nagging as a draw offer and let the opponent accept or decline it. That's abuse of power and a bet on ignorance of the player (or fear to object/appeal).

This is combined with the question of what communication is allowed with your opponent. While the laws themselves are pretty vague in that they only really say that distractions are not allowed, it is common interpretation of arbiters that the only sanctions communication with your opponent are: Announcing check, 'J'adoube (explicitly only allowed if its your turn to move), offering a draw, claiming a draw (which is first and foremost a draw offer), resigning or, when stopping the clocks, stating your are summoning an arbiter.

Since there was no check just played, and it is not white's turn, the first two cannot be the case, and he is not stopping the clock to summon an arbiter, so anything he says must be a draw offer, or resigning.

(Indeed, the interpretation that anything said other than check and J'adoube may be interpreted as a draw offer is not an on common happening in amateur events with many participants who do not share common languages, and often don't recognize the not very well standardized formulations of draw offers.

That's already grabbing at the straws... Taking something you clearly understood and deliberately misinterpreting it, pretending you did not understand? Seriously?

As I said, article 12.9, together with the preface, gives an arbiter sufficient repertoire of actions to handle misbehaviour so that there is no need to be overly creative and invent penalties that do not have any base in the rules. What would be appropriate would be e.g.

• a warning on first offense
• adding 1 or 2 minutes to the opponent on second (depending on time control)
• declaring the game lost on third (12.9.6 or 11.7; see also the comment on 11.7 in FIDE Arbiters Manual)

with informing them that what the next penalty would be each time.