Matalino, I feel your pain ! Just look at this game : http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=13383856
That's insane. Simply insane. Look at the ratings, on both sides. For god's sake. There comes a time when one should simply give up.
Maybe the programmers of Rybka and Fritz should factor resigning into their engines.
That will probably be the next step in chess computers!
This does seem like an important point. I trust players at around my level will resign at the appropriate time, but go down several hundred points and I can't say i have that same trust.
This does seem like an important point. I trust players at around my level will resign at the appropriate time, but go down several hundred points and I can't say i have that same trust.
The several hundred rating points sometimes makes it harder to determine the appropriate point. 
I don't think it's really an issue -- I'd expect that if someone's rated that much below me that their stay of execution as a result of not resigning should be relatively short anyway.
In any case, it's not so much those that don't know when they're in a lost position that I take issue with, but rather those that do and drag the game out intentionally by suddenly deciding that they need all of their time to make each of their next fruitless moves. The worst offenders will resign just one move before checkmate to drive the point home. The message from these individuals is clear: they are petty and spiteful and unable to lose gracefully.
I don't think it's really an issue -- I'd expect that if someone's rated that much below me that their stay of execution as a result of not resigning should be relatively short anyway.
Exactly right, so I don't see why some want to complain so bitterly!
Even if, as the second part of your post says, he decides to continue at a snails pace, it will still only take up as much time as if he moved quickly. So I don't really see why you all want to complain so much about it! Respect his right to continue and stop crying!
I'm not going to get into this again with you Suggo, you clearly have no appreciation of the fact that individuals can be spiteful and rude all while still being completely within their rights and that this behaviour is not only worthy of being called out, but in fact demands it.
I don't think it's really an issue -- I'd expect that if someone's rated that much below me that their stay of execution as a result of not resigning should be relatively short anyway.
Exactly right, so I don't see why some want to complain so bitterly!
Even if, as the second part of your post says, he decides to continue at a snails pace, it will still only take up as much time as if he moved quickly. So I don't really see why you all want to complain so much about it! Respect his right to continue and stop crying!
Its pretty obvious that you are not a serious chess player. Do you take this never say die attitude with you into the ring as a pugilist ? I doubt you have ever played in a serious otb chess tournament. Ofcourse, players who refuse to resign on the net dont annoy me as much as those who refuse to do so otb but they are much more rare in otb play too !
I don't think it's really an issue -- I'd expect that if someone's rated that much below me that their stay of execution as a result of not resigning should be relatively short anyway.
Exactly right, so I don't see why some want to complain so bitterly!
Even if, as the second part of your post says, he decides to continue at a snails pace, it will still only take up as much time as if he moved quickly. So I don't really see why you all want to complain so much about it! Respect his right to continue and stop crying!
Its pretty obvious that you are not a serious chess player. Do you take this never say die attitude with you into the ring as a pugilist ? I doubt you have ever played in a serious otb chess tournament. Ofcourse, players who refuse to resign on the net dont annoy me as much as those who refuse to do so otb but they are much more rare in otb play too !
But you are on here complaining about those on the net! They take up no more of your time than they would otherwise.
As far as the serious chess player goes...you have decided I am not a serious chess player because I actually respect the rights and decisions of others to play the game in any fashion that they wish....I am not a serious chess player because I refuse to try to impose what and when others should resign....I am not a serious chess player because I will not just bow before players with high ratings that makes them think they are authorities on the game in all aspects? If all or any of those are correct and it is necessary to become a pompus stuck up chess snob to be considered a serious player, then I will happily go through life, HOPEFULLY, never being considered a serious chess player!
I'm not going to get into this again with you Suggo, you clearly have no appreciation of the fact that individuals can be spiteful and rude all while still being completely within their rights and that this behaviour is not only worthy of being called out, but in fact demands it.
Spiteful and rude....these are your measures. Idon't consider anything within the rules spiteful or rude...it is all part of the game! Maybe you should consider another hobby if you can't grasp this concept!
No suggo, you are not a serious chess player because you think its ok to disrespect the game and your opponent as long as there is no written rule forbidding it. I know many serious chess players and professionals and I dont know a single one that adopts your attitude/approach, or that which you defend. Resigning when you are hopelessly lost is called good sportsmanship and is practiced by the overwhelming majority of serious chess players. As for me being pompous/arrogant, anyone that knows me personally will tell you thats simply not true.
i would only carry on if the combination was so good it would be a crime not to let him finish me
If I know I'm truely losing, I'd resign. Besides I don't like the idea of playing on
in a hopeless position.
I don't think it's really an issue -- I'd expect that if someone's rated that much below me that their stay of execution as a result of not resigning should be relatively short anyway.
Exactly right, so I don't see why some want to complain so bitterly!
Even if, as the second part of your post says, he decides to continue at a snails pace, it will still only take up as much time as if he moved quickly. So I don't really see why you all want to complain so much about it! Respect his right to continue and stop crying!
So you don't think this is done out of spite? Especially since it occurs so frequently on the losing side?
The reason behind it doesn't matter, and the amount of time you spend on the game will sum up to be the same!
I think you're going to need to show your work on that one -- it doesn't add up.
[Edit: Nevermind -- I see that you've twisted the comparison between not resigning and resigning into a comparison between not-resigning and playing fast and not-resigning and playing slow. That's great, but it's not relevant.
The original point was that there are two types of non-resigners. Those who don't know that they are in a lost position and those who do. I feel that the first is excusable, but that the second is not. The problem is that it's near impossible to tell which you are dealing with which is why the indicators of taking the maximum time as soon as the game is clearly lost and resigning just before mate were cited as one way to tell that you are likely facing a member of the latter group.
At no point was I complaining specifically about slow players who use their allotted time as per the agreement made at the beginning of the game -- frankly, I am one.]
Why not write a message to the opponent and telling that you are going to resign and see what he / she will answer, at least he/she will know.
I thing that is better then just resigning, for the other side ( not resigning ) it's like if somebody pull the rog under his/her feet, I don't think is nice to receive a notice ( the game is over due to resigning) I think is just right to do that.
King5678
I think you're going to need to show your work on that one -- it doesn't add up.
[Edit: Nevermind -- I see that you've twisted the comparison between not resigning and resigning into a comparison between not-resigning and playing fast and not-resigning and playing slow. That's great, but it's not relevant.
The original point was that there are two types of non-resigners. Those who don't know that they are in a lost position and those who do. I feel that the first is excusable, but that the second is not. The problem is that it's near impossible to tell which you are dealing with which is why the indicators of taking the maximum time as soon as the game is clearly lost and resigning just before mate were cited as one way to tell that you are likely facing a member of the latter group.
At no point was I complaining specifically about slow players who use their allotted time as per the agreement made at the beginning of the game -- frankly, I am one.]
Again the reason doen't matter, the time you use up for the game is the same.
I see your still dealing with your bizarre persecution by proxy disorder Suggo. I also see your attempt to set the record for the use of the phrase "impose your ideals" is still ongoing, kudos!
My advice to the rest of you is to simply let Suggo go on this one, or resign if you will. I have attempted to do battle with this mental mammoth before without success. I am still in awe at the way he shrugs off logic and common sense.
Matalino, I feel your pain ! Just look at this game : http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=13383856
That's insane. Simply insane. Look at the ratings, on both sides. For god's sake. There comes a time when one should simply give up.