I had two games nearing end. In one I was winning, in the other I should have resigned.  I held off resigning (probably three moves) so that I could get a new high in my ranking before having a reduction from the lost game.  Was that unsporting behaviour.

I don't think it is relevant. The amount your score will rise or fall is based on your ranking when you began the game...not what it is when you end it.

I don't think so...I believe that your rating change is dependent on your rating when you win or lose a game...not when you start the game. ( I think...)

jdthompson wrote:

I don't think it is relevant. The amount your score will rise or fall is based on your ranking when you began the game...not what it is when you end it.

Actually, I don't believe that's true.  I have monitored the point change during a game and have seen it change as my opponenets ranking or my ranking has changed.  It doesn't change by much but, it does change.

No, he means he wanted to break his rating record, and resigning first and winning second wouldn't allow that.

I don't think it's unsporting. It's just a few more turns and it's not like the highest rating you've achieved gives you anything unfair. Just personal satisfaction.

mhooner wrote:

Actually, I don't believe that's true.  I have monitored the point change during a game and have seen it change as my opponenets ranking or my ranking has changed.  It doesn't change by much but, it does change.

Under the "details" tab on the game, you can see the rating adjustment. It is set based on what your rating was when you began it. e.g. you gain more points if your opponent is exponentially higher rated that you. If in the course of that game your ranking rises to almost equal the opponent,  you would still gain the original set amount of points. At least, that is how it has always seemed to me. I could be wrong.

if you mean the two games we are having, then i don't mind.

i think it's dum to try to delay games for "the record" that you made it to this point, if you want to break a record then find a few 800 rated and try to scholarmate them... :) anyway, i don't think it's not ethical, it's not unethical if you let the other guy mate you (or fork you and so on) thats for sure. but anyways it's just plying on, nothing wrong with that... there comes a time that you just can't force yourself to play on becuase of the lame position, when that happens it meens the game begins to be a burden on both opponents. thats the time to resign.

in my opinion, yes.

btw, chess.com is using a Glicko type rating system.  i believe it calculates using the higher of each persons rating from start to finish, so if you are going to lose, it is better to lose before you win any more games so you lose less points.

kamapuaa wrote: ... so if you are going to lose, it is better to lose before you win ...

 I'm forever doing that - especially when playing the originator of this thread!

I will almost always resign a bad position if I can't see anything good coming up for me on the horizon. Playing out a lost game can be demoralizing and a distraction and may cause you to lose other games because you can lose your focus worrying about the impending loss. I just give them up so I can concentrate on winning other games. 

I'm an early resigner - Actually Artfizz thinks I'm unsporting for resigning too early!

However, it's never unsporting to put off resigning.  It's the other guy's job to checkmate you...

Not unsporting just dull.

Only unsporting to yourself. You handed me a couple of games where I thought you had an even chance on. Don't get me wrong: I'm not complaining. I have a wager on to reach 100 points away my current rating - in either direction.

up to the last move ( or at least few moves before checkmate) I will not resign. anything could happen. why not enjoy every minute of the game.