NEVER RESIGN!

Ah, I ignored the context--the other posts--in which you were making your point. My apologies.

I often resign. I don't enjoy the game when it is weighted too much against me. If I occasionally lose a game I might otherwise have won well, I really don't mind at all.

Don't resign if your opponent is mad at you for not resigning.  Resign if he is enjoying it too much.

Strange mentality.

Elubas' point is precisely not to choose your resign/no resign option depending on your willingness to annoy the opponent, which would be rude.

@Elubas : What I understood from that small part was "I will not resign to show you I know the chance I draw this is ridiculous, take the fact I reckon this tiny chance as a compliment". Huh ?  The rest was more sensible.

You choose your criteria for resigning and I will choose mine. You never owe your opponent a resignation. Resigning is up to you. I think your mentality is strange.

Sure. If you want to spend three quarters of the games you lose in a completely lost position, the choice is up to you, not to me.

But choosing to resign or not to resign because you choose the path that annoys the most your opponent which is how I read your #147 is just lame. You can do it, yes, but that's lame.

Ok, let me explain what I meant. If the opponent doesn't resign, his assessment of his chances to save the game could be a number of things: could be 50%, 25%, 15%, etc, and yes, maybe even 1 in a million. If he estimates his chances to be 50%, maybe it's because he thinks you're a bad player. But it's possible he might also think his chances are 1 in a million, and if he does that would probably imply he thinks you're a great player.

So, based on the above paragraph, my argument is that even if he is playing on at a late point, he could still either think you're bad or really good at chess -- there isn't enough information to know which one it is.

Like I said, that part was meant to be ironic -- I don't seriously mean that playing on is the way to complement your opponent -- I just thought it would be cute to show that the opponent might actually think the opposite of what you think he thinks when he plays on (that you're a good player instead of a bad player).

I just finished a 33 move turn-based game in which my opponent was completely lost from move 14 onward--yes, I had to play to checkmate. However, I decided to even play another game with that same person, because they capitalized on virtually every inaccuracy I made after move 14 and it was not trivial for me to find a winning plan. If we were playing a K+Q vs K ending out I might have made a different decision based on how challenging my opponent was before that.

It's ok to resign, just don't wait until there's only one move left to checkmate. That's just rude.

Another reason I don't resign even if I know 100%, and I mean 100% that I am going to lose, is because if I don't resign I can see how my opponent secures checkmate quickly and carefully.

Of course, a player rated 1500 isn't going to care about this because 1500 players should know how to checkmate swiftly and carefully.

Haha that last one is intended towards players like me.

I like it when people here online try to drag out games against me. I have a little fun mating with 6 knights or some other stuff. Humiliating? I don't care online. If they want to move their king between h7 and h8 twenty times, its up to them.

In real life I would however try to play perfectly and get mate as quickly as possible and respect my opponent regardless. Just focus on trying to find the most beautiful moves, not hate the player. I would not want to anger the chess gods for playing inferior moves intentionally.

I resign much later than the average player at my club. Here is an example game:

I had black. I was down a piece for about 15 moves, but I managed not to give away much more material after that. I played on looking for rook tricks.

And there you go; see if you can find white's worst move here:

I said: "Sorry, but this is mate"

But inside I was like a little lamb hopping in teletubbie land

Many of my club would have resigned 15 moves ago when they lost a piece without any compensation.

Play on and find interesting chess motives!

What if I am enjoying being mad at you for not resigning too much?

IRONTIGER, You really are clueless about what I am talking about and drawing all the wrong conclusions. You keep quoting me out of context and drawing your own erronious conclusions about me and what I am saying.

Stop quoting me.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

You are entitled your opinion but you have no right to fuck with my words.

My "quoting out of context" is, as anyone can check it, quoting your posts in full.

Your #147, quoted by my #148, also quoted by #155 (Terahammer) so that people can check I did not just made up the words, sounds pretty clear about what it means. If you think I misinterpretated your brilliant words due to my limited intelligence, you had better clarify them so that other do not fall in the same trap.

And I did not verbally abuse you, nor made anything ugly with your words.

In short : be gone, troll.

if reading post 147 once didn't do the trick, try it about 50 times and it might become clear.

Let me say for the Record that Irontiger does not speak for me.

His erronious clueless conslusions from what I said are  the words of an over-opinionated idiot.

When I say he is quoting me out of context I mean to say he is putting my words into his own context and and twisting them to his own meaning.

In short Iron tiger can go to hell.

I respect people if they do want to resign it is up to them. but it is kind of annoying if you up a bishop and a rook and your opponent has a king and 2pawns. on the analyzing board you have found out it takes up to 12 moves to mate the person and the person keeps making moves after 2 to 3 days.
you know you have to play the games for 30 days.
I respect my opponent for playing on BUT seriously 30 days on a won game is a bit much.
I ended up making premoves. I know I could have made an error giving him stale mate. - but situations like that prepares one to never make mistakes in won endgames.   

Chess is a psychological game as well as a logical game. The choice to resign is up to the person resigning. If you feel there is a reason to play on you should play on. The opponent has no right to dictate to you. If he is getting annoyed that is his problem, not yours.  Sometimes the fact that he is annoyed can be exploited your advantage. When people get emotional they are more likely to make mistakes.

Resignation is an out for the losing player. It allows him to save time and energy in a probable lost cause. In no way whatever does the losing player owe the opponent a resignation. All you owe your opponent is your best honest effort, i.e. try your best, but don't cheat.

I respect my opponent's right to play on to checkmate. I sometimes feel he is wasting his time and mine but that is my issue, not his. When they play out to mate it gives you a chance to practice checkmating techniques. I even lose respect for a player who resigns too easily, or because he is intimidated by my rating. Chess is a battle and if you are not ready to do battle perhaps the game is not for you.

I'm sure some people will try to twist my words to their own meanings, as they have already but if you have some common sense I think you will understand what I am saying.

Honestly, I don't understand the chess.com correspondence chess argument. I can not imagine a more painless feeling than finishing up a game in which you could find the moves with your eyes closed. Why not just think of the game that will take 30 days to finish as a game that "You haven't yet won, but almost certainly will." I don't know, to me that would feel like I won anyway (unless of course I eventually screw up ; but I will assume that won't happen if it's very unlikely). Someone who makes me take 6 months to finish off a "totally won game"... does not cause me pain in the slightest. If I am not interested in the current position where I am up two queens, then I can simply remember the  parts of the game that were more interesting.

The only slight problem is perhaps that a game taking longer would mean more time before you could go over the game. Of course it could be argued that if the game lasts 80 moves for example, it wouldn't hurt to go over the first 20 moves or something. It's unlikely it would affect the last portion of the game, and even if it somehow did I would understand. Besides, even if you didn't go over that game until it finished, it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be other games you finished, or even master games, that you could analyze in the meantime.

Hypothetically, maybe in some scenario it's in my best interest that my opponent resigns as it helps me go over the game more quickly. But it's not about what I think. I would never ask a person to live under the same values as me if the only justification I used for it was "because they are my values." If playing on in some lopsided position doesn't feel like a waste of time to you, who am I to tell you it is? I can only say if it's a waste to me; I can't say it's a waste to you if you find it productive. It's like telling someone whose favorite ice cream is chocolate, that it's actually not their favorite flavor.

que ?