Reb: I disagree with your assessment that it is not an insult to call someone a hack.

On to my main point. Some observations: In general I don't mind if my opponent doesn't resign. Sometimes I get a little annoyed (it is the last game in a multi-round tournament for example) but that is a bit contrived and it hasn't happened to me yet. Irregardless (1), it just doesn't pay to get worked up over an opponent who is exercising his/her right to play to the last. Perhaps they have more patience than some of their opponents and are hoping for a timeout? Perhaps they just don't want to lose the rating points (now). Myself, I have been burned twice in this manner (2). I had a GM teacher who told me that it hurts your chess to play on in lost positions (e.g. down a piece in an otherwise unclear position) because you start to look for one-movers and two-movers, cheap tactics. The types of thought processes one has are simply not what one should be developing if you are a serious chessplayer. But, I think a friend of mine said it best, when referring to lowly employees who enforce silly rules and regulations: People just enjoy having this little bit of power over an otherwise hopeless/crappy situation.

(1) Yes, irregardless is a word. It is in the OED, and is listed as having the same meaning as regardless but with a bit of humor attached for good measure!

(2) In two separate tournaments, I have had a strong opponent beat me in both games, and then lose nearly all the remainder of their games on timeout. That's the price one pays for playing quickly, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. Besides, I am not here to win rating points. The primary reason for me to play here is to plug holes in my opening repertoire, and the secondary reason is to stay sharp tactically.

fostergump wrote:

It's kinda like when someone in front of you is driving really slow....the more you tailgate the slower they get. Its the one tailgating that is agrivated not the guy going the speed limit....yes its the speed limit, and you dont have to go over it. These are the laws of the road...They have every right to drive that way. If you don't like it then stay home!

---

 No they don't.  Left lane is for passing, right lane is for driving.  Hijacking a lane (which is #1 reason for traffic jams forming on highways) is illegal.  If they don't like it, they can always take a bus.

Correct. It is part of the traffic code that slower traffic must drive on the right. Of course it is always lawful to drive the speed limit in the right lane (and in the carpool lane, during carpool hours).

To repeat, they do not have every right to drive that way. So it's not really the same thing.

Being a lower rated player myself, I do prefer to play to the end.  I have, and will resign when I know its hopeless.  I cant relate to the frustration one feels if the opponent will not resign, but this might change if I were a high rated player, or it might not. 

Oh - but in a way it is the same thing. To my earlier point, it is all about people trying to exercise their puny control over the situation. And the reason other people get angry is because they don't like being treated like children who must be "taught", or they don't like being treated "as though they are not there".

That last point has a ton of applicability also in the current geopolitical climate as well.

eternal21 wrote: fostergump wrote:

It's kinda like when someone in front of you is driving really slow....the more you tailgate the slower they get. Its the one tailgating that is agrivated not the guy going the speed limit....yes its the speed limit, and you dont have to go over it. These are the laws of the road...They have every right to drive that way. If you don't like it then stay home!

---

 No they don't.  Left lane is for passing, right lane is for driving.  Hijacking a lane (which is #1 reason for traffic jams forming on highways) is illegal.  If they don't like it, they can always take a bus.

---

???  Arent there minimum speed limits when there are 2 or more lanes? I think as long as the person is not driving under the minimum speed limit they are doing nothing wrong. If there is a passing lane then pass when you safely can. If there is no minimum speed limit the same applies.

Reb: Not true. Let's take an example so we're talking about the same thing. In California, let's look at a highway with 3 lanes. The #1 lane is the most to the left. If you drive exactly 65 mph in the left lane, while there are a bunch of people behind you, in a situation where really you should be in the #3 lane, you can be pulled over. I recently took traffic school. Now obviously I don't know the laws in all 50 states, and I'm only speaking for California. But the logic goes like this: we know people will speed, and this particular law helps increase the overall safety by decreasing road rage, by increasing traffic flow, etc. It is not your business to make sure that other people drive the speed limit. Of course it is legal to drive the speed limit and against the law to drive more than it. But, in addition to that, if you are "slower traffic" you may not drive in the #1 lane and impede traffic flow.

My local paper calls people driving the speed limit in the #1 lane "road boulders".

ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

it is all about people trying to exercise their puny control over the situation. And the reason other people get angry is because they don't like being treated like children who must be "taught", or they don't like being treated "as though they are not there".

---

By what means did you discern that everyone who declines to resign is "trying to exercise their puny control over the situation"? Being a strong chess player, which you obviously are, does not give you any special insight into human motivations. You assume that people doing something that annoys you are doing it because they have a flawed character. You are also assuming that everyone who gets angry over it is fully justified in doing so. I suspect you are erring in both assumptions.

Since he didnt mention anything about a motorway, it seems odd to bring anything up about a situation where you can just go around them, and someone being in the wrong lane is something completely different altogether (and extremely annoying)!  There is a minimum speed limit on motorways but it isnt the same as the actual speed limit, it's much lower, so there is plenty of room for someone to be going slower than you would like, and be above the minimum.  Over here i think the minimum is 30mph (I could be wrong) but it's pretty dangerous (but not illegal!) to be doing say 40mph when everyone else is doing ~70.  You might as well be parked.  There is still plenty of scope anyway for someone doing slower than you would like in the outside lane, either passing someone too slowly for your liking, or on a busy motorway with a full inside lane, so i'm not really sure what you were getting at. 

b-sheers wrote: Being a lower rated player myself, I do prefer to play to the end.  I have, and will resign when I know its hopeless.  I cant relate to the frustration one feels if the opponent will not resign, but this might change if I were a high rated player, or it might not. 

---

 I'll try to help you understand the frustration that some players feel. They get into a position like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

and then think, "why is he still playing? Does he really think I'm too stupid to checkmate him here?" 

For some people (especially titled players) some positions that might look complicated and unclear to you and I appear to be blatantly obvious wins for one side. They see it clear as day (just like how in my diagram, you and I see that white is obviously going to win). That's often the reason why you'll see GMs resign in positions where the rest of us say, "why the heck did he resign?"

Even though continuing to fight on in a completely hopeless situation may have educational value for beginning players (and is a good reason why beginners are urged to never resign and just fight on until checkmate), many experienced players find it a drag to have to make 20 obvious moves (obvious to them, because they "know their stuff" so well) to force mate, especially at a 3 days/move time limit.

Resigning in a hopeless situation is good sportsmanship; but it's not mandatory. As others have said, it's your right to play to the end if you want to; it's also the other person's right to refuse to voluntarily play you in the future if they so decide.

Personally if my win is so easy then I'm ok with playing it out (although I do appreciate when my opponents resign once the result of the game becomes totally obvious).

Reb wrote: eternal21 wrote: fostergump wrote:

It's kinda like when someone in front of you is driving really slow....the more you tailgate the slower they get. Its the one tailgating that is agrivated not the guy going the speed limit....yes its the speed limit, and you dont have to go over it. These are the laws of the road...They have every right to drive that way. If you don't like it then stay home!

---

 No they don't.  Left lane is for passing, right lane is for driving.  Hijacking a lane (which is #1 reason for traffic jams forming on highways) is illegal.  If they don't like it, they can always take a bus.

---

???  Arent there minimum speed limits when there are 2 or more lanes? I think as long as the person is not driving under the minimum speed limit they are doing nothing wrong. If there is a passing lane then pass when you safely can. If there is no minimum speed limit the same applies.

---

I live in the U.S. - the highway capital of the world.  Though rarely enforced (which is too bad - it would certainly get a lot of clowns off the roads) - it is illegal to drive in the left lane blocking traffic behind you, regardless of how fast/slow you are going.  Properly it should only be used for passing.  Besides, I have yet to have a cop pull me over when I'm driving 10-15 mph over the speed limit.  It's built into the system.

Resigning in blitz play is mostly the wrong thing to do.

So long as you avoid mistakes in the opening, the time to resign would be late in the game when both players have some time trouble. Often I find myself with a 2 minute advantage over my opponent as I move quickly, they prefer to think about moves more.

If the position is lost, but they have had 2 minutes more thinking time so have severe time pressure and no forced mate for a long time, why not play on? Mistakes are always possible under time pressure, moves have to be made very quickly. It can also be very difficult to find mating nets under this pressure. This "lost" game is actually a won one. Isn't this part of the strategy in playing very short games?

I suspect this is what made the original poster annoyed - he took up a lot of time making sure moves were fairly accurate against a fast-playing opponent. Found himself heavily up on material with ~30 secs on the clock, and no forced mate in ~20 moves. Or couldn't find the mating net. And lost. If you don't like this aspect of the game, play longer time limits.

 

this is a game I played against ozzie In which I resign after playing a few moves out. I knew I didn't have a chance after move 25 which was a blunder I think but I did learn something about pawn stucture which I then went on to use in later games. It was very helpful, and I would like to thank him here.

 

In the diagram given by lanceuppercut_239 it is mate in 3. Is it such a problem to complete the game? In The_Pitts v ozzie_c_cobblepot, 16.Qb4? should have lost a piece to Rxd3, but Qxb4? was played. Errors by the winning side often encourage the losing side to continue, even while still dead lost. A worse sort of poor sportsmanship used to occur when over the board games were adjourned when it was not necessary to have another session to finish the game. For example, a player who had a rook against a rook and a knight would want to adjourn to study what could have been a drawn game in very few moves. That required another session in which the stronger side might return the favor by prolonging the game before conceding the draw.

GreenLaser: Nice! I missed Rxd3!

The_Pitts: I enjoyed the game as well, I think that in the opening you should watch your d4 pawn a little closer in the future.

Duffer1965: OK. Interesting point.

Duffer1965: I stand by my point that a powerful motivation on the "not resigning" side, which also plays a part in driving, is the desire to exert (anonymous) influence over the other person. Also, I stand by my point that the main reasons why people dislike this behavior is because they do not like "not being in control", they do not like "being treated like a child", etc. I have witnessed too many of these threads, mostly other places, and talked to too many people to believe otherwise.

 GreenLaser's posts in this thread contain insightful and thoughtful information as usual. One point I'd like to clarify though:

GreenLaser wrote: In the diagram given by lanceuppercut_239 it is mate in 3. Is it such a problem to complete the game? 

---

 

 I don't think it is a problem to complete the game. The reason I made up such an extreme example is to emphasize the point that the game is clearly won by white.

There's a difference between a position being "losing" and being "lost". It seems to me that masters recognize a position which is "lost" much earlier than amateurs do. In the diagram I posted if a complete beginner is playing Black, he could think, "my opponent could still stalemate me if he makes a mistake. I'll keep playing." A more experienced (yet still amateur) player might play on in a lost position for a similarly silly reason; they just don't realize that their position is lost, or they hope for their opponent to slip up.

thanx lanceuppercut_293, I understand exactly what you have written about.  I think this issue is one of personality.  If I was given the situation where my opponet had just a King, and I had all the other pieces, I would have a smile on my face while saying that little SOB.  I would play the game out without reservation.  It is proper sportsmanship to resign when all is lost, but when forced to play out an obvious ending, what harm is really being done to make one become angry or so frustrated.  One can always not play that person anymore.  Is it really so bad?  I dont think so.  Again, I think its a personality thing.  Some people get road rage easily, some dont.  I would think that higher rated players would understand that lower rated players have a lower rating for a reason.  I have a lot of respect for higher rated players, and I personally would resign happily without playing to the end, because of that respect, but, I have also played flat out begginers.  I know to have patience, and am happy to let a game run its course.  I am not offended if they do not resign.  If I was inclined to become frustrated with flat out begginers, I would not play them.    But just as a side note, I will not play golf with flat out beginners, they must go to the driving range first.

b-sheers> It is proper sportsmanship to resign when all is lost, but when forced to play out an obvious ending, what harm is really being done 

If they play it out at a reasonable speed, none in my mind. But if they delay or play slowly then in a chess.com tournament they are holding up the beginning of the next round for dozens or hundreds of players.  In an in-person tourney, they are reducing the time you have between rounds which is critical for resting, exercising, eating, etc. So there is some actual harm to others beyond the mere annoyance.