People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

50 years ago when I was first learning chess I went to chess clubs and coffee shops where The only way I could get the better players to play me was to bet money on each game. We both knew from the beginning that I was in a lost position. I treasured every minute of those games, lessons really, and I wanted to see how to finish off an opponent so I played until mate. 

The simple, and beautiful truth.

I can't deny that I too get frustrated at times when the opponent won't resign, but that problem lies with me and not the opponent.

Exactly

Yesterday in a youtube video where You Yifanresign in a lost position against Carlsen someone asked why GMs resign before checkmate. That guy made some comparisons using other sports: 'a football team does not leave the field when it is losing 8x0 with 10 minutes left '.

I am the 'team' who resign quickly when I know I am completely lost (or get angry when my opponent dont). So I investigated this problem in the most impartial way possible and came to a follow reflexion.

----

People like me only see logic in chess. If there is mate in 3 (Q vs. K is mate in 9, right?) this is like 2 + 2 = 4, there is nothing to be discussed, there is no subjectivity here. So resigning is a way for you to express that you understood the position at its maximum level, you solved it and found it to be win, lost or draw.

On the other hand, people who, having discovered the verdict or not, continue to play, bet on the subjective resources of chess that can also be placed within the sport category (the first case is science, determinism to be more exact). The subjective side (AKA sport) involves much more than 2 + 2 = 4. 2 + 2 = 5 if the math teacher is drunk, or 2 + 2 = 5 is correct if the opposing team does not have enough time to press the button that judges whether the answer was true or false. Note how I put math inside a sports context where in addition to the inherent logic there are subjective resources involved: you need to push a button in less than 5 seconds indicating if the response of the opposing team is true or false, in this case, even if 2 + 2 = 5 is false, within game context will be true for other factors that go beyond logic ;)

We know how much chess has become more and more sport with its modern time controls. Playing on a site like CC rarely two opponents will discuss the position after the game and TOGETHER try to find the best way to conduct that game. In other words, there is no mutual interest in achieving perfection: the logic that could exceed the personal desires of each player. The goal today is to feed one's individual desires.

What I can say is: 2 + 2 = 4. It does not matter if some sports rule allows this to be 5 in some situations. So when there is mate in 4 or promotion of a pawn is inevitable making the game in a 'mate in 9', the position is already lost. I'm happy to have reached a position even when I lose by time or by some carelessness where I allow the draw. But I'm human, when a opponent show your ardent desire to win the game, even if logic, ethics, friendship is on the side, I see my opponent as an enemy and this atmosphere of war makes me wish the end. (I do not know how this type of personality is formed, but it has to do with some childhood experiences, etc ...).

In addition to that, I can remember how much I felt guilty when I won games in 2002 (the only year I played OTB tournaments). The desire to win from those opponents confused me because I was not even there for the result, just wanted to play chess (and I still win, which made me feel guilty lol).

In short: it is a psychological trait. In fact, through this you can discover a lot about someone! And that psychological tend to hard the sport sucess :/. But that large amout of supressed anger, as well as liberation, can make these people great sportsmen, with an above-average energy: either for the study / improvement of oneself, or for the energy invested in the game.

PS: this reflection can go far beyond what I have exposed. There are those who say, for example, that people like me are more connected with their feminine side. And this feminine side lacks a desire for power, but it's too subjectivity for one post, so I stop here..............................................

People comparing to other sports is always spurious (even if we accept chess as a sport).  It's like comparing cricket to tennis and asking why someone doesn't hit the ball back at the batsman after they strike it like they do in tennis.

(For our American friends cricket is a sport where people hit a ball with a bat, but takes a bit longer than baseball!)

NEVER,RESIGN....YOU,ARE,PLAYING,A,HUMAN,NOT,A,COMPUTER,...

Well, if it's a blitz or bullet game, there's still always a chance they'll mess up and accidentally cause a stalemate, or run out of time, so there is still something worth fighting for, albeit unlikely most of the time.  But if you're playing slow chess you're probably just making it exhausting for the other player.  But some people are just so competitive and can't stand to lose they'll cling to even the lowest chances of drawing the game rather than give up.  Really depends on the player.

It probably depends if you consider stalemate a goal worth fighting for in a Blitz game too!  I'd rather just start a new game personally.

Going forwards, I think I may resign myself if I'm getting bored of an opponent who is dragging out a losing game, then block said opponent so I never have to face them again. Possibly also let them know that they're a knob.

Hi

My comment, some time back, was more about people playing online who abandon a game and leave the clock to run down. I think it's discourteous. BTW I believe chess is a game, not a sport.

they see me not resigning

they hating

my increasing rating

I NEVER RESIGN (unless I have to leave), I will drag the game out by as many moves as possible in the hopes that you will make a mistake, and there is no honor in quitting. I will not run my clock down though (at least, not on purpose).

There's no honor in anything, we're not in the 18th century.

Dude just stop DetectiveRams made perfectly legitimate points here, which you have just trolled look it can be frustrating when people don't resign - the answer is to just beat them, never assume malice where lack of knowledge applies - perhaps they don't know they are losing or think they can come back? Or think you will make a mistake

My problem is not people who refuse to quit but those who just let the clock run down - or even worse make a move with 30 secs left...

Anyway I play in a league and sometimes I make mistakes and recover sometimes I don't - its worth it to play on often.

I sometimes find it amusing to see how long I can run a game out without conceding a draw, when my opponent won't resign. Move 1 queen up the file 1 square at a time, then return it back to home base and start moving the second queen up one square at a time, keep a pawn or two so you can restart the 50-move count when needed. Only gotten up to about 100 moves so far, so I've got a lot of room for improvement. I'm hoping to win a 1000-move game some day. 

that would be amazing

I played a game recently where I was up two pawns and a bishop in the endgame and they guy would not resign.  At first it annoyed me because I had other things to do and he was dragging it out. 

But the guy kept playing in such a way that if I had promoted a pawn it would have been a stalemate.   In hindsight it was a good ploy on his part.  

I don't mind resigning if I feel I am going to lose, but I also am not above going to a stalemate either depending on the position.  But I have declined rematches with people whom I feel waste my time needlessly.  But it's their choice, so no anger really.

Sometimes i keep playing because i hope for stalemate.