he told me that I win on time only !! I like cowers !!?
Sort:
What was the point of this? Besides giving me blurred vision??
I wonder what is the hell wrong with some guys just click resign If you are fucked up DAMN!!
I enjoy playing to the bitter end, even if I am losing, timing out on someone deliberately in that manner... Yes zlatna is a coward!
To my knowledge I have never resigned, if you have nothing to lose it is fun to make things as difficult as possible for an opponent. 
At least you got the points which means as I understand it, tactically you would have won anyway!
was it blitz game?
mrtampa2 wrote:
was it blitz game?
Even if it was a blitz game, the manner that it was deliberately done, I think was just plain nasty. If it's the sort of thing he does all the time it will backfire because nobody will play him!
You cant be childish about losing. Just my thoughts anyway.
uwinagain wrote:
To my knowledge I have never resigned, if you have nothing to lose it is fun to make things as difficult as possible for an opponent. (Post #5)
and
You cant be childish about losing. (Post #7)
I sense some internal conflict . . .
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
uwinagain wrote:
To my knowledge I have never resigned, if you have nothing to lose it is fun to make things as difficult as possible for an opponent. (Post #5)
and
You cant be childish about losing. (Post #7)
I sense some internal conflict . . .
No, you misunderstand me. Making it hard for someone to beat you is not being childish, as long as you play and play hard even if you know the chips are down, then everyone learns something. Making evasive moves could save your skin in another game, so why not practice?
It's the never resigning part. If someone is down substantially, say King and a couple pawns against check-mating pieces, he's not learning anything by continuing until the bitter end, and it's not even possible for him to play "hard". He's just thumbing his nose at the person who's already effectively beaten him.
So the person with the most pieces that have any power should be able to finish off our King and two pawns rival, yes?
It could even end up a draw, you should always play on in my opinion?
They could have just got lucky and be really rubbish at end game moves!
It's never over until it's over!
the lower rated the less likely to see a resign
IncredyBill wrote:
the lower rated the less likely to see a resign
Yep. Particularly if they're fairly new to the game.
What is they are checkmate first?
What! So now you want to knock people for not giving up?
Glad the fate of the world isn't your hands guys!
uwinagain wrote:
What! So now you want to knock people for not giving up?
Glad the fate of the world isn't your hands guys!
A chess game has nothing to do with the fate of the world. Not playing to the end in a lost position is simply a matter of courtesy to your opponent by not being a jerk and wasting his time.
Playing any game is wasting time. Jerk.
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
uwinagain wrote:
What! So now you want to knock people for not giving up?
Glad the fate of the world isn't your hands guys!
A chess game has nothing to do with the fate of the world. Not playing to the end in a lost position is simply a matter of courtesy to your opponent by not being a jerk and wasting his time.
Then why are you posting on here, brah? Physician, heal thyself, brah!
Quit torturing those poor chess pieces!!!!!!!
johnmusacha pulled his head out and wrote:
. . . brah . . . brah . . . brah . . .
and then stuck his head right back up there.
