http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=7798261

I have to actually play this out because my opponent will not resign.

So play it out.

lol

I am, that doesn't mean it's not a waste of time.

 

It's very irritating. Both the fact that some opponents don't resign, and the fact that we get a new thread like this every day.

There's another post covering this same topic:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/lack-of-respect2?lc=1#last_comment

players dont have 2 resign .... if they r losing and carry on playing it just means they are sore losers!

I think you will win this one.

well ... sum players just arent good sportsmanship!

Do you know that it is cheating to discuss a game that is not finished!

I apologize, I was unaware it was against the rules to link to a game that was not complete.

I'm not asking for advice. I'm pretty sure I don't need it.

For all intents and purposes, the game was finished about 15-20 moves ago.

is it really cheatin if u discuss it b4 game is finished?? wow!

First, let me admit that skiingisfun's game is over.......BUT.  He has won convincingly, but there is no way, now,  that he can win as a good sport in a global village filled with "friends" meeting to enjoy the exercise....this time, that is.

NOW. 

I thought a game was over...finished...completed when one player had completed a checkmate.   This idea of resigning/quiting the game before a mate has been completed when two sub 1600 players is engaged in battle seems to fit right in with today's modern/internet era (I'm old) of quick summaries of everything with little depth.  The game is a process of logic that continues until the mate has been completed.  Many of you guys cannot remember chess being played by two players who have invested time and energy in just positioning themselves in person at the same place at the same time to play/enjoy a game (and each other).  Are we enjoying chess or simply adding another bullet to our resume of interent activities with anonymous "others."  

   The internet has introduced a new era of chess where the emphasis is on how many games with anonymous "others" that are being played instead of the process that two individuals are engaged in together.  This is a new development in the  2,000+ year history of chess. 

Prior to this (the internet era of 20 games at once) , when I met and played an inferior opponent who did not resign, it never ocurred to me that he should resign or his character (as a poor sport) was in question.  I was only motivated/challenged to try to bring the checkmate sooner which frequently amazed me as to how long that process might be which was a learning process in itself.

Lots of players have difficulty completing the mate even with most pieces off the table which can be embarrassing.  And, such a game can end in a stalemate... It is a game unto itself.  Completing the checkmate is not an embarassment for the winner, it is a duty as a winner.  I know some geniuses walk away after 4 moves.  Well, some guys are 7 feet tall and throw little balls through nets for millions of dollars......and that ain't us.

I just won a game where the opponent did not finish or resign.  He just let the game time out.  I have respect for him and what that loss might have meant to my neighbor in another country on another continent.  It never would ocur to me to think of him in any belittling manner.  Those of you that feel that way, please note my name and let's not play each other.  I have a different idea of the game as a process til the opponent completes his game, a meeting place, an exercise of the heart and mind and of my opponents as friends that I have not met with lives that I know nothing of in environments that I might find strange.  That last part is the "problem/challenge" with the anonymity of internet play.   Ok.  That's old fashion, maybe...but so is good food and  breathing.   Some things never go out of style  IMO.     

What other game is there where the winning (not winner, yet) player "expects" the other to quit before the correct number of "matches"  (tennis) or "quarters"(american football) or "halves", "laps" (racing) or "points"(table tennis) have been played to complete the game.   Let the process run its course.  And, if you are a winner......then WIN and enjoy the process!     moody, eccentric geniuses and celebrities are excluded, of course.  

Now, after such a long post, please feel free to let me have it any way you wish.

Good point schwazman!

I find these topics way more irritating than people who don't resign when they are behind. The game ends with checkmate, so mate him.

I'll agree, good post. It should be copied and pasted to the 100 other forums that are about this topic :)

Also, when I first started out in chess, and even sometimes now, I have stalemated my opponent when I was in won position. I think it is through doing this, that I've become very aware of it, and have worked hard to iron it out of my game.

 Off topic from this - but boy, the amount of times I've been caught out by a back rank mate, it was the thorn in my other side.

 

skiingisfun69 wrote:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=7798261

I have to actually play this out because my opponent will not resign.

---

 Resigning is a personal choice.  It has become an acceptable part of the game, but no one is forced to resign.

He might be trying to see if he gets lucky and ends up with a stalemate.  It is his choice. 

Your choice of making this a forum topic seems to be an attempt to belittle your opponent.

 

ponar wrote: players dont have 2 resign .... if they r losing and carry on playing it just means they are sore losers!

---

Not necessarily. 

There are some that will argue that their opponent (regardless of how much of a lead they have) could still make a fatal mistake and lose the game (however unlikely this possibility may be). 

There are others who would argue that they can still avoid a checkmate and force a draw rather than taking a loss by resigning ("Just because I can't win, doesn't mean I can't stop you from winning.")  Personally, I respect this "Never say die" attitude.  It's like Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai:  "If you're going to die by their sword, or your own, let it be by theirs."  "Quit" is not in my vocabulary.

And then there are those of us who play chess not to rack up wins as quickly as possible, but to enjoy each game and learn from each game (win or lose).  If I cannot avoid a checkmate, by all means, take my King.  But if there is any way of postponing/avoiding it, I'm going to look for it.  I think most would agree that you learn more from games that you lose than from games that you win.  All the more reason that I would not want to end a losing game prematurely.  I obviously still have a lot of learning to do, otherwise I wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with.

Call me a sore loser if you want.  Say I'm rude if it makes you feel better.  But I'm not going to resign.  That's just how I am.

 

billium that is so true... anyone can slip up any time even when they think they have the game in their hands

well ... i suppose u are right. i was playin a game and was about 3 moves from checkmate and all my opponent could do was keep givin me check. in the end he resignd after he couldnt give me check anymore but what was the point in that?

the point was to try to play for a perpetual check which leads to a draw

yes rokadus, a draw is better than a lose