Above a certain level (say around 2000), I find that most people who won't resign in dead lost positions repeatedly (not just out of spite) are autistic, so be careful who you toy with.

Dink Heckler wrote on 11/24/11 at 10:40:00:


Don't forget about Ivanchuk picking his nose during the analysis session.

Nice story, But don't post their names; nobody knows them anyway.

IMJohnCox wrote on 11/21/11 at 23:25:47:


I agree.  What I meant was, I think you're entitled to think badly of someone who does this sort of thing, but not to complain about it.  I think that complaining about some player's legal actions is itself bad form.  You should just grit your teeth, I think.  Vent to your chess buddies, but don't complain about it in public.  I don't say that's what you did.

I once offered a draw in a last-round, Sunday afternoon game, notwithstanding that I was a safe pawn up and had a good chance to win.  My opponent had driving to Columbus from Cleveland, about two hours away, with three other players.  My game was the only one still being played, and all those people wanted to get back to Cleveland.  My winning would have consumed at least another hour.

Playing on was my absolute right, however, and I would not have appreciated anyone's complaining about it if that had been my choice.

IMJohnCox wrote on 11/21/11 at 23:25:47:

Repeated draw offers or ones in losing positions are of course unacceptable, but I always thought the "gamesmanship" draw offer ("You're a bit ahead on the board but perilously low on time, so I'm going to give you one more thing to think about") was totally part of the game. I'm sure Simon Webb would have agreed...

I'll also sometimes offer a draw if both I and my opponent are running out of time and it seems more fair to just declare it a draw than to effectively flip a coin to see who can survive the time scramble.

Quote:

Absolutely agreed.

Quote:

Indeed. I am always taken aback when people are called on their rude behavior and then say "I had the right to do that!" Of course; that's why the behavior was rude and not simply illegal.

>But IMJohnCox, while I understand your irritation, I don't think that a legal draw offer can possibly be condemned. 

I'm surprised to hear you say that. A draw offer in a lost position is (I thought universally) regarded as poor form and personally I think offering a draw to a player who has very little time is also unacceptable - after all, the main object of it is precisely to distract him from concentrating on his proper move and perhaps even persuade him to lose on time. If you do want to offer a draw in these circumstances, it's incumbent on you to be very careful about finishing your offer before pressing the clock.

An act doesn't have to be unlawful to be condemned; the entire point of etiquette is that complying with the rules is the start and not the end of it.

Anyway, as others have pointed out, this particular offer was in fact not made according to the rules.

My opponent was not a child either - obviously children sometimes do do this sort of thing and are to be educated rather than condemned.

In simuls and casual games, I will often promote to N+B and mate with that.

In a serious tournament game, I try to be as efficient as possible though.

Nakamura's 6 Knights Mate against Crafty in 2007 is almost a work of art!

I don't know that chess etiquette really prefers efficient play over punishing the player who doesn't resign. I suppose someone could argue that two wrongs don't make a right. But is it really wrong to finish the game in the most entertaining way for you?

After all, the real objective of chess is to have fun.

I had a simple rook up ending once that my opponent refused to resign. Literally rook against nothing with 3-4 pawns each and no dangerous passers! I proceeded to underpromote to a rook and use the standard zig-zag mate with two rooks. And he even played that out to mate... 

After the game, he had the nerve to accuse me of being disrespectful in deliberately choosing a weaker piece!