I have a foolproof strategy for dealing with these people:
Checkmate.
When facing an opponent, Chess is a battle not only of the will, also of physical and psychological impact.
I am sure that you all have seen GM's and world champions playing until they win or loose or the draw is obvious.
For psychological impact, one can go back to Bobby Fisher in his 1972 game and more recently to the Biel tournament where all of the articles I read on the internet said that Magnus Carlson had a draw against Pelletier. Carlson won the game.
Why did Carlson keep on playing? I do not know exactly the answer, what I can tell you is that he has determination to win and will not give up until it's over, just like Tommy Lasorda's famous phrase: "it's not over until it's over".
Annoying or frustrating you say!
If geniouses don't give up, there is a reason and that reason is: they have to convince themselves that there is no possibility to win, then only will they resign or accept a draw. How do they know that there is some possible solution? for one they can see 10 to 15 moves ahead and if after that many moves there is no resolution in sight they will keep on playing, secondly they might see a possible blunder from their opponent in an extremely difficult position, especially if he has not enough time to check out all of the combinations and the challenger has had a lot more time available to analyze the position. I think personnally that Carlson is one of the chess players that if he is not convinced 100% that it is a draw or that he will loose, he will keep on playing to see the outcome and learn from it! After all he is playing against very strong opponents in his class and perhaps he will learn something new.
Now don't tell me that an opponent of 800 should quit if his position is a loosing one, he has an awful lot more to learn than Carlson and in his case he has the whole community of chess players to show him the path. Be patient, your opponent might a very strong player one day.
Yes it is a battle not to say a war, but do you not prefer to play against a better or improved or stronger player one day, give the person the greatest gift you can give to anyone on the face of this earth and that is called time!! Just take a distant position from the game and just think about this.
Furthermore, I personnally consider it a very strong trait of character not to give up until absolutely proven or convinced that there is no issue. In real life one may have to set things aside for a short or long period and come back to it, but when you play chess you do not have this opportunity, so the only solution until a clear view of the outcome is seen, and for a neophyte at chess this migth not be clear at all, is that you continue to play.
When it comes to giving up a game when the opponent has a distinct advantage say 2 queens versus a rook with equal pawns or even less pawns for the challenger with the rook only, who ever says you must give up? I played a lot of games against my brother and he never gave up until I beat him, even when absolutely convinced himself that he would loose.
What happened is that I went through a number of years of frustations, about 10 years, long you will say, yes it was.I still keept playing with him for some unknowned reason at each occasion we had and today I do know why.
We both never gave up in our aspirations.
What came out of it finally, is that I learned to checkmate him very quickly in 3 to 6 moves and then I had my reward as I used to tell him I would checkmate in say 5 moves, he always laughed at me and when it happened it was my reward.
So thanks to him I am a better ending chess player. And I do have a lot more to learn.
I have bough last January the Jeremy Silman book on "Complete end game course", all I can tell you is that out of 500 pages the book is, Yeah I know it is exactly 530 pages but that is not my point, about 150 pages all at different level I already knew about because of my brother's play: do I say stubborness or determination not to give up until it's over?
When I add all the positives from giving someone the opportunity to show him a quick mate or to learn new variations or to help her/him out, all I can say is that I for one welcome players that don't give up.
I am not talking here about people that take a vacation during a game, so please do not reply along this line as I agree with a lot of the comments on the other forums.
Food for thought.
TheGrobe wrote: I have a foolproof strategy for dealing with these people: Checkmate.
no way..... your lying... u mean that if an opponent doesn't resign I can use the ability "checkmate" to win? Pray tell how you came up with such a theory.
TheGrobe wrote:
I do not see anywhere that TheGrobe wrote he will checkmate in one move if this is what you are implying, all he said is just checkmate him, who cares in how many moves as long that it is less than 1000, as the game would become tedious.
I hate when I've promoted all my pawns and now have 9 queens on the board and my opponent only has a bare king and he won't resign despite the fact that he's doomed and I'm only a few moves away from checkmating him no matter what he does. It's so frustrating when the scoundrel makes me --- makes me --- take a few seconds of thought to move my overwhelming forces into a position to checkmate his bare king.
Sometimes it makes me want to give up chess and take up firewalking.
Hello everyone. I must say I was one of those who never resigned. I didn't understand why or when to resign, to me it was like giving up on a game. Ofcourse now I understand why one SHOULD resign, however, it does not bother me at all when one person does not resign and plays the game out to the end. On the contrary I like check mating my oponents. I use to not resign because: 1. I wanted to learn, 2. I don't want to give up, 3. Sometimes I log on and its not my turn to move on any games, so I'd rather be taking out my oponents pawns, then waiting for someone to move, 4. Theres the slight possibility for a stalemate, 5. Theres also a possibility that the oponent might lose on time (I know, but I don't mind getting those points added to my rating!! hehe) And I'm sure there are more reasons I'm not remembering. But ofcourse after reading many of these post, I do resign when I know theres no way out! Gosh, stop being so harsh on people, if they want to play then play. If you don't want to deal with this then play with people of higher ratings, that way you'll be the one resigning!!! Just kidding guys, happy mating!
Duffer1965 said:
Paul211 says: This is a very interesting puzzle why don't you post it?
There are not that many comninations even doubling or tripling some pawns.
The most obvious one is if each pawn promoted to a queen is in it's own file than the last promotion is checkmate, obviously unless the poor king tripped and fell off the board, rare but plausible!! Then the checkmate still applies as the king is placed on his majesty's exit position, who knows he possibly had to relieve himself.
The other consideration is naturally why do you promote all of your pawns into queens?
Many times a checkmate is obtained by selecting the right piece, rook or knight or bishop!
Often I have promoted to a bishop or a knight it depends on the position and how to obasin the fastest checkmate. you may want to analyze this further.
Show us one game and your 8 queens and we will all comment, I am very eager to see this one. I realize that you have played a very low ranking player who had no idea of the game and just moved around the board, nevertheless Iit will be very instructional as for one the most pawns I ever promoted was 4 .
paul211 wrote: Duffer1965 said: I hate when I've promoted all my pawns and now have 9 queens on the board and my opponent only has a bare king and he won't resign despite the fact that he's doomed and I'm only a few moves away from checkmating him no matter what he does. It's so frustrating when the scoundrel makes me --- makes me --- take a few seconds of thought to move my overwhelming forces into a position to checkmate his bare king. Sometimes it makes me want to give up chess and take up firewalking. Paul211 says: This is a very interesting puzzle why don't you post it? There are not that many comninations even doubling or tripling some pawns. The most obvious one is if each pawn promoted to a queen is in it's own file than the last promotion is checkmate, obviously unless the poor king tripped and fell off the board, rare but plausible!! Then the checkmate still applies as the king is placed on his majesty's exit position, who knows he possibly had to relieve himself. The other consideration is naturally why do you promote all of your pawns into queens? Many times a checkmate is obtained by selecting the right piece, rook or knight or bishop! Often I have promoted to a bishop or a knight it depends on the position and how to obasin the fastest checkmate. you may want to analyze this further. Show us one game and your 8 queens and we will all comment, I am very eager to see this one. I realize that you have played a very low ranking player who had no idea of the game and just moved around the board, nevertheless Iit will be very instructional as for one the most pawns I ever promoted was 4 .
I don't think that the game exsists because he was joking.
Tunatin wrote: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/refusing-to-resign
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/refusing-to-resign
I remember that forum - happy days :)
Maradonna wrote: paul211 wrote: Duffer1965 said: I hate when I've promoted all my pawns and now have 9 queens on the board and my opponent only has a bare king and he won't resign despite the fact that he's doomed and I'm only a few moves away from checkmating him no matter what he does. It's so frustrating when the scoundrel makes me --- makes me --- take a few seconds of thought to move my overwhelming forces into a position to checkmate his bare king. Sometimes it makes me want to give up chess and take up firewalking. Paul211 says: This is a very interesting puzzle why don't you post it? There are not that many comninations even doubling or tripling some pawns. The most obvious one is if each pawn promoted to a queen is in it's own file than the last promotion is checkmate, obviously unless the poor king tripped and fell off the board, rare but plausible!! Then the checkmate still applies as the king is placed on his majesty's exit position, who knows he possibly had to relieve himself. The other consideration is naturally why do you promote all of your pawns into queens? Many times a checkmate is obtained by selecting the right piece, rook or knight or bishop! Often I have promoted to a bishop or a knight it depends on the position and how to obasin the fastest checkmate. you may want to analyze this further. Show us one game and your 8 queens and we will all comment, I am very eager to see this one. I realize that you have played a very low ranking player who had no idea of the game and just moved around the board, nevertheless Iit will be very instructional as for one the most pawns I ever promoted was 4 . I don't think that the game exsists because he was joking.
Um, yeah. Thanks for picking up my slack, Mardonna. I forgot to put my smiley face after that sarcastic rant.
It could happen - put that many queens on the board and you're asking for stalemate.
It's one way of annoying you,Who knows?you might get annoyed and commit a mistake.
I prefer knights myself - less risky and more funny.
Though in this game I was gutted I missed the forced mate in 6 (see variation on the move list) 67. ...Ra8+ 68.Kxa8 (forced) Nb5 69. Kb8 (forced) N3b4 70. Ka8 (forced) Nc4 71. Kb8 (forced) Nc6+ 72. Ka8 (forced) Ncb6#. Neigh!
Just play it out and take the win when it comes. The other guy has the right to try to fight it out. You can't force a resignation.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote: Please change "refuse to resign" to "continue to play on", otherwise it sounds like you are asking or expecting him to resign.
Please change "refuse to resign" to "continue to play on", otherwise it sounds like you are asking or expecting him to resign.
His belief is that resignations are mandatory under the framework set forth by Article 3 of the Fifth Geneva Convention, relative to the Protection of Winners in Times of Victory.
Specifically, Article 3 subsection 3.1.2 establishes that all participants in competitive contests have inherent rights and responsibilities which must be adhered to for the Common Good of a Civilized Society.
Furthermore, Article 3 declares that each participant in a recognized contest has the authority to declare victory at any time, for any reason, be it real or imaginary, as long as the decree is an accurate representation of what the declarator believes is likely to occur in the future if the competition were to conclude with a natural cessation of hostilities.
Once a formal declaration of victory has been pronounced the ad-hoc victor has a reasonable expectation that the losing participant will adhere to his or her expectations and be amenable to any further pronouncements or declarations put forth until one or both parties have agreed upon a formal declaration of peace.
Of course, I'm paraphrasing a bit but I think that's gist of what he was trying to get across...
-Gonnosuke
Tht's called never givin up attitude ! mayb he is just a rookie ! so i guess its good for him and wants to learn more about the game in tht manner ! Whilst i suggest u tht u find all the ways to check mate him asap!
But to be honest, ppl do learn a lot in tht way !!!
Its ok as for not resigning i too dont resign till the last, i always hope and try for a stalemate and even learn something new.
But my question is, is it fair not to make a move till the last minute of your time if the loss is almost certain.
Vibovit wrote: I think it's okay only at begginer's level (like mine) - even if I'm obviously losing, I'm not going to resign because I want to learn by watching how it's being done. Also there is a slight hope for a stalemate if the impatient opponent loses concentration.
I agree. I tend not to resign, even though I KNOW, that I will not win, I would like to learn, if for nothing else, how my opponent, is going to finish the job. There was one game that I played where I contemplated resigning where my position was terrible, I was down in pieces, and all looked bleak. However, my opponent made a critical error, and I was able to salvage a stalemate.... better than a loss I would say.
but certaininly, as a beginner, the learning factor plays into the stubborness not to resign when all hope is seemingly lost.
I don't resign in a completely lost position most times, I say drag the game on as long as you can.