Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

  • #1561
    CalebChessGeek wrote:

    Even when I've been a queen down I have still won. I never resign now because people blunder. A lot. And if I blundered the queen, but if they blunder 2 rooks, then we are even. It happens. NEVER RESIGN GUYS!!!!!!

    Great, an 1170 drops queens, therefore how dare you expect your opponent to resign in a 30 minute game when you're up 2 queens and he has no pieces left, and you're rated, say, 1500.

  • #1562
  • #1563
    azbobcat wrote:
    shreyasminocha wrote:
    azbobcat wrote:
    Phil_Surtees wrote:
    azbobcat wrote:
    upsetruminants wrote:
    Chessflyfisher wrote:

    I just started a blog on how to handle the teams that insist on continuing to play even in very lost positions and do not resign when they should. My feeling is that they should be boycotted and the winning team should tell them why there is the refusal to play them again. I understand this behavior (refusing to resign) on a one on one level hoping to use the "dead man`s defence" ploy. I confess that I have used this myself and it did work a few times in USCF correspondence matches and I certainly am not proud of this (winning because a person died--talk about winning ugly!). I usually throw in the towel these days when I see that defeat is inevitable in a correspondence game. But in a Vote Chess match, this strategy is so ridiculous, it is laughable.


    In any sanctioned match you are entitled to the full amount of time you are given in the game. It doesn't matter how you use it. The USCF has a rule that states abandoning a game and letting your clock run out is considered unsportsmanlike and rude (which it is), but this doesn't seem like what you're referring to. If your opponent wants to play a lost position to the end it is your responsibility to checkmate them gracefully and end the game. If you can't do that, perhaps you were just looking for an easy win?


    Thank you for your post. This has been my position. Even in Rapid Chess, hoping to win on time when you have been soundly beaten but are ahead on time *is* cheap  and unsportsman-like. That's what separates REAL Chess Players from Patzers and idiots. A REAL Chess Player RESIGNS  when they fall to far behind materially, no matter the fact that they may be ahead on time. I don't want to hear all the nonsense about it is some "strategy" to beat an opponent by running out their clock. I've had the PLEASURE of playing some true GENTLEMEN on Chess.com. but unfortunately their are far too many people who have no moral compass. Any one who thinks that by winning a blitz or rapid game based on time makes them a better player really has some screwed up values.

    I completely disagree!

    If you are way ahead on time, but behind on the board, that is invariably because you have taken less time to think and, consequently, you haven't played as well as you might have if you'd used as much time as your opponent.

    The time is the time, and it is a vital part of the game in a timed match.

    t's part of the strategy of playing in timed games that you try to keep more time up your sleeve than your opponent. The idea that it is ungentlemanly to win on time is completely and utterly wrong. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's life in a timed game.

    A real player does NOT resign if they're in a poor position but are ahead enough on time to win that way.

    A real player will ABSOLUTELY try to win on time if they have a bad position but more time than their opponent.

    Sorry, but the suggestion that a player should resign if they're in a losing position, but can win on time, is absurd. In fact, the suggestion that a player who wins on time is lacking a moral compas is itself an amoral statement!

    What on earth is the purpose of playing a game with time if you aren't going to use it to your advantage?

    If you think Magnus Carlson - or any top player - would resign, rather than win on time, you are very sadly mistaken. I actually feel a bit sorry for you, because you are no doubt losing games that you could have won, for no reason than a erroneous perception concerning time games.

    If you're in a losing position and don't have a large time advanatage, then of course you should resign. However if you are in a losing position but have a lot of time, while your opponent is almost out, then there's no way you should resign and there is nothing at all in Chess etiquette that says you should resign in such a situation.

    I'm truly amazed that you would suggest such a thing!


    Sorry Phil, I just looked at your "rating" -- You're a joke; a Patzer. On my WORST day, with a splitting migraine, and stoned out on drugs, at 30 minutes -- which is VERY fast for me -- you'd be dog food. 75% of the games I lose at 10 minutes, I am usually ahead at least 3-5 points, usually more. At 30 minutes against someone like you and up that much you be soundly beaten over, and over again.

    Ad Hominem. *Sigh*

     Not really. There is a matter of RESPECT.  I have been playing chess for 50 years.  Calling running out your opponent's clock is still NOT a "strategy", you are acknowledging is you don't have a snowball chance in Hades of every beating a person, so you throw wood at them, with the intent of winning on time, not by playing a decent game of chess.  At 30 minutes -- a FAST time control for me -- to say noting of a REAL time control of 40/90 + G/60. You wouldn't stand a chance.  There are some very very good players who can play G/10 or less. Oddly they are the same ones who RESIGN after they are down 5+ points or they realize their position is hopeless.  In other words they don't try to get a cheap win by running out the clock.  Your OTB rating at a REAL TOURNAMENT LEVEL TIME CONTROL is probably ATROCIOUS. Why?!? Because at a time control of 40/90 + G/60 you wouldn't have a prayer of running your opponent's clock out especially down 5+ points.


    I also note that those who defend the idea of trying to win on time are also the weakest players. ie Sub 1000 - 1200. With a rating in that range -- YOU ARE A WOOD PUSHER!! You are an embarrassment to those of us who are chess players.

    > be azbobcat

    > use all my time to get slightly better positions

    > run out of time because I wouldn't know time management if it hit me in the face

    > whine about how people run the opponent out of time

    > call anyone reasonable a patzer

    > mfw I'm rated 1750 after 50 years of playing chess because instead of owning up to mistakes I make I blame them on my opponent

  • #1564
    Highimsam wrote:

    I can be annoying, but at the same time, (not referring to you) if you lose a game when you're a queen and a bishop up, then you kind of deserve to lose anyway. I play mainly blitz games, and it is really common for me to be up material, but down on time. And I've lost countless games on time when I was up +6 or more because the opponent chose to stall the game instead of resign. BUT, that's blitz. It's part of the game.

    Without trying to be rude, my philosophy on all games, from chess to starcraft to competetive fighting games, is that if you're not good enough to beat the bullshit, then you don't deserve to complain about it. And if you are good enough to beat the bullshit, then you have no reason to.

    Except when you can beat the bullshit but it's still really annoying

  • #1565
    ShaoniHiya wrote:

    Check out this #chess game: ShaoniHiya vs Spyke565 - https://www.chess.com/live/game/2599027836

    Great logic. Someone won when they were down material. Therefore you should never resign, even when you're playing black in a position like this https://lichess.org/analysis/k7/8/8/7Q/4N1KP/5PP1/8/7R_w_-_-

    and your opponent still has 15 minutes left on their clock

  • #1566
    Buford-TJustise wrote:
    a lot of the members here probably live in retirement homes. they may need a nurse to tend to some physical need and in the process their time may run out, irrespective of whether they are in a lost position or not. so think of how quacky you look when someone has a look at the innocent victims ipad only to see comments like "resign b*tch" or "another stupid runner".

    More great logic. Some people might be rude when they expect their opponent to resign, therefore you should never get irritated when people play on in completely losing positions, people that should know better than to waste their time with that.

  • #1567
    glamdring27 wrote:

    Playing your first move is disrespecting your opponent by suggesting to them that you think you have a chance of beating them.

    1. There's a difference between thinking you have a chance of beating someone, and thinking you have a chance of beating/drawing someone in a position like this. https://lichess.org/analysis/k7/8/8/7Q/4N1KP/5PP1/8/7R_w_-_-

    2. If I got a chance to play Magnus Carlsen, I would accept without hesitation. Even if I couldn't win, I could learn from my game, and it would be a really cool thing to brag about ("I played Magnus Carlsen")

  • #1568

    In Vote Chess matches on this site, I have suggested simply to not play such teams again and to tell them why a rematch is being refused. Perhaps giving them a warning that if they play on in an obvious lost game (which is their right, of course) again, it will be their last game with us. This may seem to be a bit obnoxious to many to have this attitude but unless one is playing in a tournament (team or individual), one has the right to refuse to play such people. In correspondence Chess, sometimes players will use the "dead man`s defence" in which stalling tactics are used literally hoping that the opponent who is beating you dies first! A ridiculous tactic, quite obviously, that is often used in Vote Chess. I mean, come on, half the team could drop dead and your still going down! 

  • #1569
    SonOfThunder2 wrote:

    Let the thread die already

    If you don't resign,  you are dissrespecting your opponent. 


  • #1570

    many people make mistakes so lost game might not be lost for ever you might get a win its  still some what likely unless you lost all your good pieces but even then they might time out 

  • #1571

    I usually resign when I'm down in position and material. But sometimes I say to myself, I'm gonna make 3 or 4 more moves 1st, and the situation changes to my favor. When the other person is ahead they get hurried and over confident.

  • #1572

    "Chess is Life reflected on a chessboard. thats why we should  Never resign!!!"

  • #1573

    I had opponents wanting to resign because they are losing! angry.png

  • #1574

    Yes, we should have an option where we can make our opponents resign when we want them to. I don't see any potential problems with that idea.

  • #1575

    They want to draw because they have to leave, family things okay.  Not because they are losing!

  • #1576

    in bullet resigning is almost always a blunder


Online Now