I cant stand people who dont resign -.-

Going to have a New Year's Party with a couple players where we will not talk about chess. Good Times. Food, Drink and Fun. And jump over to couple other parties. Meet more people as we all get it rockin til the break of dawn.

Sure everybody else going to have a great time also. Rock On!

Only resigners allowed!

I'll be resigning myself to a night with sherry this year. 

Good Times

I can think of at least 6 times I've found myself pondering the should I resign question.its in my nature to keep trying til the end,but I will resign when opponent has unavoidable/ forced checkmate on me. I enjoy squeezing every last move I can out of game ,even wen totally outnumbered. But it's a poor loser that would try to bore their opponent into losing. & if those 6 earlier mentioned games, I did TOTALLY enjoy thefqct that I somehow managed 2 wins. 10x more pleasure than leading from start to checkmate.

True, it can feel like they're dragging out the game, but think of it this way: You may have the chance to sacrifice the exchange down the road and that always feels good.  Even if it isn't objectively best (such as trading a queen for a knight, but you have an extra rook on them anyway so it wouldn't matter then). 

I think I'd be facetious and reply....

Ok, but only if you want to. I would never feel like I have the right to suggest such a thing to someone. Anyone who does that should feel like a real @$$#ol#.....

I agree  like idiot of the year 2013.

I only resign when I know that my disadvantage is really extremely huge.

There are cases where I may have a disadvantage of 1 rook and 1 knight, but I think to myself "As long as I have the queen and the other rook I will keep fighting". It has happened when I come victorious after being in disadvantage for most of the game. Those cases are rare, but it happens.

I have won games after having a disadvantage of a Queen. Obviously you would have no chance in hell with such a disadvantage against a very strong player. But when you are playing mid-low level players, I continue playing until I see that I have nothing else to do at all.

I have more respect for people that keep playing and trying, than for those that resign after having lost a couple of pawns in the middle game.

They still have rooks, queen, bishop, knight, but they lost a couple of pawns and they give up. Of course it is better for me because I gain ELO and if it is a torunament I gain points, but to me, those people do not have courage at all.

What I hate though is when you have a huuuuuge advantage, and let's say that the game is 5 days per move, and your opponent that normally was making moves everyday, suddenly begins to make his move when he has just a couple of hours left before his time expires. That means that he makes a move every 5 days.

That is disrespectful and very unsportmanship, because he will lose anyway, but he is trying to delay it as much as possible in a very unsportmanship way.

Exactly, but get an inch and take a yard here. They evolved into abusing the vacation option. And their motives changed to hoping for a Time Out and they will be proud of it. How are you going to be proud of a game you were losing and won by Time Out. But they are here.

I dare them to try it in person. Never seen it done and it will not happen. Not in my city. Play like that and trash talk comes out. Show everybody how you whuppin that guy all over the board. We would snatch up extra pieces and get multiple Queens. Where i am from .... having an opponent get multiple queens is sick. After that people start to find no interest in playing you in a game. Problem solved they resign before it happens and we play another game.

Not resigning in a game in person. Result not many friends. Just play next game and get some payback. And if your not good enough play anyway. In losing you know what you have to work on which is a reward. I never heard of not resigning till i came here ..... period.

What has been working is having these games posted in groups where others can see them. This happens in Vote Chess also. In which case i find very little interest in a rematch with a non resigner or any future games. I will not send or accept games from them period. As for those that do resign i will glady play them again. May even ask some of their members if they want to join our team but not playing against their team naturally.

"Result not many friends. Just play next game and get some payback."

I don't know, I would feel pretty weird about myself if I decided I disliked someone because they didn't resign. But of course that's because this issue is divided and I'm on the other side of it. I do agree though that running out your clock simply because you can is bad, because in that case you really are just motivated by the satisfaction of your opponent having to sit and do nothing before he wins.

One of these days I should annotate one of my games showing this idea of being as sure as possible you are going to lose, and not wanting to have any doubt of it, and just wanting to see the full process carried out.

Again, I do resign sometimes -- as said it's not about what I do -- if someone has a different philosophy, and has a good-intentioned reason behind playing on to mate, even if it is a reason that I do not understand(!) (for instance it may not make sense to me why a person would play out a position a queen and rook down, but it's not about what makes sense to me -- my opponent presumably has found some motivation), I just give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. Maybe 99% of those late resigners were doing it out of spite, but I still don't want to make any assumptions about my opponent, just in case he is innocent. I'll have a much better idea of who he is by actually talking to him in person, off the board.

I have seen players wtih 0 pts in a tournament on this site with no chance to move on. They not only hold up the group but the enitre tournament. Your in group B and this guy in group F will not resign. In middle of riding a hot streak. At the same time everybody has the chance to look around at number one (no chance to catch them off guard). Also giving them extra time to figure out your game. This is one of the places where it first started. A month will almost go by and you really forgot you were in that tournament! May have even lost interest. Tilt the king so everybody else can move on.

I don't think it's harming much, though. People figuring out your game is something they always have a right to do; even if they are incidentally helped by the opponent playing on, the two things are separate from each other. Again I hope your opponents don't play on simply because they want others to figure out your playing style. Intentions are everything in my opinion, and I guess, as someone who has sometimes wanted to resign late just to see a process in its entirety, to remove all doubt, I can understand why some people might want to play on a while. Maybe those guys really are just jerks; I'm saying, I can't really get into their head, so I'm not going to assume they are jerks. In my opinion, it wouldn't be fair to judge them so quickly.

And I guess another thing that forms my opinion is that winning really easy positions is just so painless to me. Being at the board for another 15 minutes just isn't that annoying to me if I can very easily get the win. Certain positions might be the equivalent to me breezing through multiplication tables.

So even if I did think playing on was wrong, those playing on against me just wouldn't affect or harm me that much anyway.

You missed it. They are holding up the entire group in that tournament which will suffer the most. They also are holding up the entire tournament. The part of the players get extra time to figure out your game is in addition.

They do it to ruin the entire tournament for everybody and maximize the damage. All the players moving along at a reasonable pace. Except this dude who has maybe 1 pt and no chance to advance to the next round. How are you going to defend that situation?

When in these tournaments i quickly identify who may not resign and beat them first so i do not the issue of being the last pair playing them. All your opponents will be mentally fresh and your still have this ..... guy who will not resign. With 0 or 1 pt and no chance to even win the current game. Not even to get a draw which still is pointless in a tournament here. All the players will remember your name. Tournament Director will not let you join his tournament again if he wants people to participate.

"You missed it. They are holding up the entire group in that tournament which will suffer the most. They also are holding up the entire tournament."

I don't think holding up a tournament is so much of a problem. Maybe in some extreme cases, like if a person is deliberately delaying the game 6 months or something, but correspondence chess is deliberate by nature. I'm used to the fact that a position might hardly change even after a few weeks of play. I go about my day, and at some point just casually log on and make my moves when I want to. Generally I have a lot of other things going on in my day; CC chess is just the little gaps where I can make a move or two and then log back off.

I just don't see the suffering. If it's an easy win, then you won't be having a tough time winning the game. If it delays the next round from starting, you can add a few other games to play in the meantime. CC is meant to be slow anyway, I thought.

In more official correspondence environments, like "real correspondence chess" if you will, not the kind on chess.com, I would be more inclined to agree with you.

"Tournament Director will not let you join his tournament again if he wants people to participate."

Like I said, I would feel so mean for doing this. And of course you say it's mean to play on. Difference of opinion I guess

I am now in a tournament and I have mate in 1.

Before, my opponent was doing moves everyday, now I see him online all the time and he does not want to move or give up in this game. It is mate in 1, there is nothing he can do about it, there is no way out. Fortunately the game is 1 move per 3 days, so he will lose anyway in some hours, but the intention is what counts.

And yep, I agree that in a tournament, if you have literally no chances at all and everybody is waiting only because of you, then give up.

I have seen in let's say Blitz tournaments. Everybody has finished their games, but they can not continue the next round because there is 1 game left. You look at that game and it is all decided. Yet, the guy with a huge disadvantage will not resign and you see that he still has several minutes on his clock. That is very frustrating.It can be OK if you have the whole day, then just go for a drink or do anything you want for those minutes. But if you have to go to work in 30 minutes, and you want to finish the tournament, it is very frutstrating that because of one guy, you are not gonna finish it.

Pasha, I would say it's your fault for having a tournament without taking into account whether you would have the time to finish or not. If nobody uses all of their time, ok, you would luck out and not be "punished" for your decision to start a tournament too close to work. But you shouldn't just expect to be that lucky.

I would think especially in blitz one would have some reasons to play on most positions. I do think the extra few minutes of "wasted" time it takes is worth having full clarity that you were going to lose. It seems unfair to me that someone should be pressured into resigning without being sure they are going to lose simply because someone decided to start the tournament without enough time to finish it. It is hard enough to be responsible for oneself; it is pushing it to insist everyone is responsible for you too.