Checkmate over Resignation
Sort:
Dec 6, 2007
0
#2
hmmmmmmmmm well i honestly think u make a good point but your opponent probably wanted to see if they could get back in the game, no matter how bad it might be for them there is always a chance for them
I agree with you, but there's not much you can do
well...say there's no clear win I can agree...but when it comes down to something like a king vs king-rook...we ALL know this is a forced mate, but some people make me go through the motions.
Maybe he wanted to stalemate, or he was new to chess and did not know how to mate in such circumstance and chose to see how you would. Sometimes a mate can be tricky if you don't know it, 2bishop against king for example. In such case one might want to play the game if he thinks that his opponent does not know how to mate. What ever your opponent does you have to respect him and his decision. You should not be proud of checkmating but of the overall game you played which lead to that point (or to him resigning). It is easy to checkmate when you have a clear win, it is harder to get to the clear win.
A win is win no matter what!
I haven't really thought about it until now, but does it affect how many points you earn or lose if you resign or get checkmated rather than resign?
So, you won the game and your opponent lost, but somehow you're the one that feels bad. And you feel bad because it says "won by resignation" instead of "won by checkmate". Is there really a difference?
Maybe chess.com should change it so that when you win it says "won by intellectual superiority" and when you lose it should say "lost by bad luck". Then everyone would feel good.
I don't feel bad. I feel that some times it's a waste of time to go through the motions when a clear win is at hand. And finally, after pushing and pushing, when you're one move away from checkmate, they resign. Something they could have done a while ago. If they really feel that I could slip up and make a mistake then surely they can wait that single additional turn to find out if I can finish what I started.
if it's hopeless for me, i will push 'till the end for a stalemate. it actually works out more often than i would have expected. when you've only got a king, you're opponent will sometimes pay a little less attention.
I have resigned a few times in the past when I am not literally one move away from being mated but a few just because I don't feel like going through the motions when I know there is no way out. Why waste my time?
guarana wrote:
I have resigned a few times in the past when I am not literally one move away from being mated but a few just because I don't feel like going through the motions when I know there is no way out. Why waste my time?
I have resigned a few times in the past when I am not literally one move away from being mated but a few just because I don't feel like going through the motions when I know there is no way out. Why waste my time?
i dunno. for some reason i'm always hopeful that my opponent will do something stupid. i do stupid shit all the time! why shouldn't they?
I understand it can be frustrating to have your opponent resign one move before mate, but no where near as bad as your opponent taking a months vacation a couple of moves before mate. I currently have an opponent who is dead lost and imagine this he suddenly needs a month vacation. I know this issue has been hashed out repeatedly on this site, but i am sorry the only reason he took vacation in my opinion is to make me wait a month and i wouldn't be surprised if he didn't answer and i won on time. I know a win is a win, but if you are clearly lost resign lose with some dignity, don't act like you are still in preschool and refuse to answer or take a long vacation just to annoy your opponent Come on grow up people.
LOOMIS wants all of us to resign rather than wait for him to checkmate us.
Reserves, I've posted in other threads that I've never been bothered by people's choice of when to resign.
Dec 7, 2007
0
#16
probably bad but if a player is weaker they might not see the cheakmate till late
Check the games of spair75 , he has about 20 games in which he is clearly lost and refuses to resign even one of them and is dragging them all out just as long as he can. I have a game with him and he is more than a rook down and when he started doing this with me I checked some of his other games and yep.......just as I thought he is doing this in MANY of his games. What kinda person does something like this?
ego....
There are times when I am outmatched by a higher rated player and I will play it out just to improve myself. You can be courteous and avoid laying down at the same time
Dec 7, 2007
0
#20
Good debate. On higher level, chess does presume a level of gentleman behaviour, which would include resigning when there is nothing to do. The point is when do you consider position dead lost. On lower level it is usually much closer to checkmate, while masters resign (or agree draws - the point is same) when position is at the point when continuing would be underestimating of your opponent (read this as disrespect). There is absolutelly nothing we can do - expect for trying to behave ourselves as gentlemen, thus making example for others to do so.
This is happening to me a little too often for my taste. I'll play a game that I am clearly winning, and instead of my opponent resigning, he'll chose to go through the motions and finish the game. That in itself is perfectly fine with me. The problem arises however when I'm a single move away from checkmate, and THEN my opponent choses to resign. Is this considered poor etiquette? Don't I deserve to have it say "won by checkmate" after being forced to go through the trouble while in a clear lead?