When someone asks me to resign my technique is to try and make it last as long as possible.
well, he is hoping for stalemate probally
rich wrote: When someone asks me to resign my technique is to try and make it last as long as possible.
Obviously you need to get a life. If the only reason you play is to spite your opponent I would suggest that you have problems that need to be addressed. Chess is only a pastime, winning or losing a game of chess proves nothing. The idea is to have a good time playing your position and if you win, it's a bonus. If you were playing for some kind of stake it might be different matter but playing games online? Resign and get on with the next one!
You need to get a life, your wrong if you don't resign there is a chance of a stalemate.
Since there are clearly two intractable views here, I propose the chess world splits itself officially into two camps: the Quick End Chess and the Slow End Chess.
bbwolf1 wrote: The ability to resign is to benefit the person who is losing. If someone really wants to be tortured before they are killed, so be it. Don't get frustrated, just finish them off as efficiently as you can.
If they refuse to resign enjoy it, I do. I would think it would be painful for the loser, not the winner. I guess some people like pain.
jhuhniv wrote: If they refuse to resign enjoy it, I do. I would think it would be painful for the loser, not the winner. I guess some people like pain.
Sadly, you would have to count me into that. It usually takes the pain and embarrassment from constantly getting my butt kicked to get me thinking properly. It isn't to annoy anyone, waste someones time or to do with points. I am sure I will eventually hit rock bottom and start to dig. It has nothing to do with lack of respect either. I very much respect the people I play against, appreciate their time, and enjoy the game. I think that I would feel a rather distinct lack of respect if someone thought it was a waste of their time to finish a game they started.
Simply put, players who are not students of the game (like me) will not resign games unless they know beyond doubt that they are lost. It is not deliberate, it is not a slight, it is merely a lack of understanding.
I play for the experience, the challenge and the pleasure.
I recently played an opponent, who, like you, was probably frustrated that i hadn't yet realised the futility of my position. He did not tell me to resign, but he merely explained the situation, the moves he could make, the moves i could not stop, why my position was less than ideal. So educated, i thanked him, resigned and moved on.
If I can't obviously see you getting mate, I won't resign.
If you can't demonstrate to me why I should resign, I won't.
If you can't get mate, there's no way I'll resign. If its that obvious, get it done and get it over with already. Its not my fault you're impatient.
These games are for learning, and I can only learn through explanation, or demonstration, I wont resign without at least ONE of these.
Playing a game out albeit an effort in futility can be educational for the hopelessly lost. I once saw a hoplessly lost soul worm his way into a stalemeate. Hey you never know...and it isn't over until it's over
i've done that before... chess is a learning game... people like to play out completely lost situations becuase the experiance gained will help them in later games...
I've been reading in simmilar threads, plenty of people who say that higher ranked players "know when to resign" and that it's a courtesy to do so when losing. However let me tell you about my last win. I was playing a stronger player in a chess.com tournament and after a tough battle I got him in a complicated position, where he sliped and got into checkmate position. What he did was write a message to congratulate me for the win (since he naturally could foresee the result) and played the forced moves that led to mate. I think that was the most polite thing to do and best attitude I've seen.
Don't know about you, but I prefer to see the mate happen; and was not annoyed at all to play the winning line. Nevertheless I understand not everyone feels the same. So let me tell you about this other game I played earlier in the same tournament. I got to a loosing ending of pawn Vs pawn and knight. I kept playing hoping to get his pawn (that was far away from his king) and get a draw, but he played very preciselly and, when the win was inevitable, he sent a message saying "I think I've won this one" and posted the winning line towards his pawn promotion. So I just agreed and resigned.
Conclusion: just COMUNICATE. Not everyone feels the same about playing or resigning, so if you know you have a wining line, just politely post it and your oponent will probably resign. But ultimately, it's his desition and you have to respect it the same way you get that choice when loosing. Why is it so terrible to play a wining game? I have this feeling most of us who really enjoy playing chess, beyond the desperate search of a win; really don't get so annoyed about someone resigning or not. You WILL get the win points ppl, just relax.
When I first was learning how to play chess, those who were helping me learn tried to drill one thing into me.
You don't learn a thing by resigning.
Sure, I may be completely lost. But something I see during the game may help me later. It probably won't be for one of my moves even. I might see something my opponent didn't see. Or I'll learn something because I didn't see something.
The endgame is one of the best places to learn complex situations. There are fewer pieces on the board, but that doesn't make it simple. But it does make it easier to see the complexity than in the opening or middle-game.
Sometimes people don't want to make you mad, they may even know you are going to win, but that doesn't mean they can't learn something.
The first chess book I got was by Silman, covering the basics of each area. And in there is stresses the fact that resigning doesn't solve anything.
If I'm here just to play or win, sure I'll resign. But if I'm looking to get better, you better believe that you'll have to checkmate me.
may not work art. our analytical skills calibrated differently. how deep must we go to see if a position is hopeless? What value system do we use to trade position vs points?
Did the Phillies resign last night when they were 4 runs down in the ninth..NO...they scored six, and thats why they play the game...again...hey you never know...and; I'M A MET FAN...sheesh
I don't mind people that play it out, but I detest the people that drag out the moves. If they play the first 15-20 rapidly, then the last 30-40 every 4-5 days. It is just poor sportsmanship on their part.
He refuse to resing in a hopeless possition? Remember his name, and never play again with this friend.
Haha I'm a Phillies fan so that was a great game last night, too bad it couldn't have been at against Wagner "Also known as the Rat" Im sure you were moslty kidding, but comparing chess and proffesional baseball doesn't work.
Anyway, I understand that people learn differntly than I do, but I don't see how you learn anything from being down a rook a knight and three pawns. Im not talking about a lost 2 vs 1 king and pawn game, to me it just seems like a disingenuous justification for not resigning. (BUT i understand that this might be just a difference in the way I learn so maybe people do learn this way)
So to me, yeah I would usually resign but I don't throw a fit if people keep playing, but I do find this "I never give up" bravado inappropriate. If the game is clearly lost, its good sportsmanship to conceed the game, congragulate your opponent and find out where you went wrong (Unless you bet your house on the game or something.)
Hmmm, I was just reading over article 10 of the FIDE 'laws of chess,' and I couldn't for the life of me find the rule stating that someone must resign when down in material. Maybe someone can tell me where this rule is to be found?
If it's not a rule that one has to resign in a losing position, then there is no legitimate reason to expect one to do so. Thus, anyone who does expect such is merely being irrational.
I just read over the United States penal code and couldn't for the life of me find the rule stating that someone is not to be a jerk. Maybe someone can tell me where this law is to be found?
If it's not a law that one shouldn't be a jerk, then there is no legitimate reason to expect people not to act like jerks. Thus, anyone who does expect people to treat each other respectfully and not act like jerks is merely being irrational.
By the way, there is no law against being an idiot or a moron either.
if you really are that far ahead then why don't you just kill him?