I cant stand people who dont resign -.-

It can be more fun not to resign in some cases. Like when you both enjoy a game.  

So here it is...

Yes, GMs resign. But in bullet chess, they only resign when their opponent has a lot of time left. I can see where resigning is applicable, but I often do not resign. This is because I do not care about the result, I care about the play. If the person has me cornered, with a queen and a few minor pieces, and I have nothing, I play on to see how the person checkmates me. I often find it disappointing if an opponent simply pushes a pawn to promote for an easy checkmate, because it shows that they do not have good endgame technique. And there have been situations where a completely lost position has turned into a stalemate.

However this is in endgame, where the beauty of technique can be appreciated. I can also see the reason for resigning, if your king is trapped at the side of the bord in the middlegame, and you obviously cannot defend it. The act of resigning depends on many things, and should not be generalised.

I think you should be prepared when starting a game of chess to play it to the end. If one of the players resign, fine it is his/hers choice and you should be glad to win. If they want to fight to the bitter end you really need to just play on to the checkmate is done. Often when people complain about this thing it is because they have trouble checkmating and are afraid of stalemates or losing on time. Stalemates and timecontrol is a part of the game and it is really a win for the losing part if one can make it a stalemate or a win on time instead of a checkmate. Don´t start a game if you not prepared to play it. This is my humble take on it. ;)

First off, was that an on going game when you posted it?

I love this option of deciding when your opponent resigns.  I'd force it after my first move everytime.  Carlsen wouldn't be the top rated player for long!  :-p

Now I'm more confused.  I just noticed that Heinrich lost that game.  Are they angry at themself?

I look at this way. I don't really care whether they resign or not. It's their dime they can play it how they want. Just don't be surprised if I under promote to an army of bishops or knights and slowly torture them.

I did purposefully trap one person into a two square prison while I aimlessly meandered around the board with my king inspecting the board for dust. After about three moves it finally dawned on them that they weren't going anywhere.

I have never encouraged any of my scholastic students to resign early. I tell them it is a game of chess, anything can happen. Especially at the their level.

Seriously though, just use it as practice and test yourself on finding the fastest win. You never know when it might come in handy.

On the flip side unless there is a chance for creating some counter-play or a fortress I usually just resign. Especially if they are higher rated. Lower rated... not so much. For some odd reason my ego won't allow it. 

I'm pretty sure Conq was already in a mocking state. 

Lol at least Andy gets it.  And I have done that same response to resign threads for a while ago (mocking the gg is arrogance thread I think).

Paul has shown evidence of getting these sorts of things of late too...a regretable lapse from the dean of our Analytical Department. 

Let's make it happen!

"For example, a GM would not drag out a hopeless position (say a piece down with no compensation or tricks) because they would look like a fool."

It doesn't really make sense how a GM would like a fool in this case. It's quite possible that the GM would know he is lost and still play it on anyway, because even if he still loses, he is just as well off as he would have been had he resigned. Resigning may show you know you are lost, but not resigning can mean either one -- that you are ignorant of the position; or, that you know you are lost, but see no possible punishment for the decision to play on.

Looby, these arguments of yours are not entirely compelling (methinks you are engaging in a bit of sophistry). 

Ok, perhaps I'm wrong -- perhaps it can only mean one thing if you don't resign.

To a GM playing a lesser light, it probably only does mean one thing:  that he doubts his rube opponent can win it (either that or he's so sore about getting a lost position in the first place that he's just engaging in a bit of grudgery).

To a GM playing another GM, it's apt to be only grudgery.

Actually, I just played out a Reti-Rubinstein game which Akiba dragged out for a darned-near shocking length of time.  Most likely that was some sort of grudge-match mentality at work (either that or Ruby was already starting to go a bit mental).

But in terms of results, there is no possible net loss for playing on. If a player wants to go from 99.999% sure he will lose to 100%, there is no penalty for going through that process, so it's basically a free lottery ticket.

Resignation is the honourable acknowlegement of overwhelming forces and your inability to counter such force, irrespective of the circumstances.

I can admit my position sucks and not resign at the same time.

I don't understand, the OP was losing almost throughout the game, why is he complaining that his opponent isnt resigning LOL

Elubas, to be honest, I can't believe a player of your level is making this (frankly) asinine argument.  Doesn't it occur to you for example that there might be other considerations?  Like maybe a GM wants to get a little rest and stop staring at the game he botched...and maybe he doesn't want to incur the scorn of his fellow GMs by being regarded as a "notorious bitter-ender" and all-around woodpushing nitwit?

But I still say you're pulling our leg a little... 

I think you misunderstand me, AndyClifton. Those are all valid reasons to quit a game. I am talking about the result, specifically. It is up to the player to weigh those practical considerations as well. However, playing in hopeless/near hopeless positions is kind of easy in a way, because you don't even feel that bad if you make a bad move, because everything loses. Hopeless positions aren't really that taxing (for either player -- if we really want to call the position "hopeless"). But, yes, the player has to keep in mind energy.

It doesn't really matter what level you are -- as I have been saying, this logic applies even when one is totally aware of their losing position. The only difference it makes is the chances of saving certain positions get lower and lower, and so it becomes more and more practical to save the energy.

"and maybe he doesn't want to incur the scorn of his fellow GMs by being regarded as a "notorious bitter-ender" and all-around woodpushing nitwit?"

It would be irrational scorn, but yes, it is a good idea to anticipate people being mad at you for rather odd reasons.