Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 13:37:01 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 10:57:29, Pete Melissakis wrote: >On October 09, 2002 at 10:24:10, Brian Thomas wrote: > >>Interesting topic brought up recently among co-workers (we are casual chess >>players only); interested here in opinions/thoughts, not looking to start a >>debate and not meant as a troll! >> >>We've noticed that resigning is almost always considered acceptable in Chess. >>Yet, in most sports or competition, this is not so. In most other competitions >>(all that I can think of, but I may be missing some) even in the face of certain >>defeat it is considered polite and perhaps "honorable" to finish the match. >> >>Opinions? >> >>Brian > >In the sports you mention the hopeless completion is not due to >politeness but because of the rules of the game. It is a _requirement_. >In chess, the rules allow resigning. > >Pete ô¿ô This mostly is true. A Marathon competition is just one exception. But *why* does chess allow resigning? In competitions with a significant element of chance, it makes sense to continue. In chess, the element of chance is relatively small, so continuing to play is just boring. In a marathon race there is often no chance of winning (the winner may have already finished), but there the winner is not obliged to wait around for you to finish so there is no really strong reason not to finish.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.