|
|
|
Topic: Player rated over 2200 not resigning a lost game
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
While it is impolite not to resign a lost game, it is not required. If it is "lost" to him, then just beat him, and try to avoid playing him again.
|
|
|
I guess the point of Kirkland is that if someone is rated 2200 and higher he is considered an 'elite' whom we can expect more in terms of courtesy and knowledge of "rules of the game". I don't think he will air this post if the player is rated 1600 and below. In fact he titled the post to qualify the statement up front.
|
|
|
And maybe he is using engine, and comp doesn't want to resign yet :)))))))))
Just a joke :)
|
|
|
Good point, razoman.
|
|
|
I just realized a potential benifit to delay the effentual loss. Your most recent games have the greatest impact on your present rating. By resigning several games simultaneously one can substatianly lower one rating, and hence qualify for an under 2200 event. Or one could delay resigning in order to achieve a tempory rating inflation. Hence one might achieve the minimum rating for a tournament and enter that tournament. Once the tournament starts you wont be evicted if your rating falls below the criteria. If one includes the 50 game rule one may want to synchronize their rating minipulation with reducing the inprogress count below 50 games. I dont wish to encourage such tactics. I just want to alert everyone to the possible motives influence the decision wether or not to resign.
The impact of a player not resigning is minimized by faster time controls. That is why 1d/m +14d is my faovorite time control.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next |
|
|
|
