Playing right now vs player who's refusing to resign. I have 10 min on the clock. any advice?
People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.
Sort:
defeat him ASAP
asryd wrote:
Playing right now vs player who's refusing to resign. I have 10 min on the clock. any advice?
It probably wont help with your current game (over by now), but I agree with HashRib. By defeating him asap that means finding the shortest possible win. If you see the win, at least try for a moment to find an even shorter win. He may be trying for a draw (or potential win) that you do not see. watch for that as well.
on a different site, someone I played often would not resign. the reason being, we are playing to learn. when you resign, forfeit your learning and flush your opponents.
Jun 19, 2018
0
#1766
If you are in a position to resign you have presumably already made enough mistakes to learn from in one game.
ambidextrousjojo wrote:
I'm pretty sure Black had greater winning chances here, but White has found a way to NOT RESIGN: by forcing a draw by repetition. Feel bad for him, though.
Well, the material is equal and although black's position is better, there is no need for white to resign
Jun 23, 2018
0
#1768
this thread will definitely reach 100 pgs if i keep bumping it like this
Linonano wrote:
there's no rule being violated, so why worry about it?
MAybe you should learn the basic concepts of sociality, and when you get older maybe you'll realize why something being legal doesn't always make it completely justified
Zedwardson wrote:
To be blunt, a lot of players at lower levels struggle with won endgames. And if it a live game, there is always the clock ticking, and winning by flag drop is still winning.
For games between low level players, that's fine. For games between higher level players, there are positions where both players are too experienced to be reasonably expected to drop a loss. There are times when you shouldn't resign, even when you're losing, but that isn't every time.
DetectiveRams wrote:
Enderman1323 wrote:
How many times do I have to explain that not everyone loves wasting their time. It's like you just can't understand the concept of time being valuable. Unlike you, some people have more valuable ways to spend their time than waiting for some idiot to drag out the game in spite. If you think all winning positions are quick mates you're probably not smart enough to belong in any sort of forum.
You are contradicting your self. If a quick mate isn't in sight, but you have a slight, or even large advantage, then either way the game will still take a while to end. If you play on, the game will take a while to end (the exact time depends on how well you can control the position). If you want them to resign, then that is stupid. Let's face the facts. No one wants an opponent to resign because they have an appointment to go or a party to be. It's because they are too damn lazy to think long enough and are afraid that they are going to screw up. If a game is going to go on for a while longer, then why not play on? If you want to get all the way up to a winning position, but don't have the conviction or skill to play it out, what is the point of the game, and why do you think you deserve to win. You mindlessly accuse people of 'wasting your time', and 'not understanding' what you are trying to say. However, you fail to accept that the world can do what it wants and you can't stop people from doing what they want. So the next time someone continues to play in a losing position, why don't you quit whining and use the opportunity to show you can finish what you started.
This giant block of stupidity is too ridiculous for me to tackle all at once. Let's break it up into more manageable pieces of idiocy
Your first point: If a quick mate isn't in sight, the game will still take a while to end
Response: You make no argument for why people shouldn't resign in a surely lost position
Your second point: Nobody wants their opponent to resign because they have something important to go to
Response: Again, true, but that doesn't mean people want to sit down at a table playing a chess game that's already over. It's boring, and a waste of time that could be spent doing other things.
Your third point: Projecting your own insecurities about your skills onto other people
Response: You make the ridiculous claim that people that want their opponent to resign are lazy, but refuse to back it up with reason. I've highlighted for you exactly why someone would want their opponent to resign, and you make an absurd alternate suggestion.
Your fourth point: If a game is going to go on for a while longer, why not play on?
Response: I think my IQ just dropped 5 points from reading this. The whole point is that the game doesn't go on longer if my opponent resigns, and I don't have to waste my time
Your fifth point: I can't physically force people to resign when they should
Response: That doesn't mean that they shouldn't resign. I'm trying to convince people to resign when they can't save the game. You can't physically force me to stop pointing out your idiocy, but that doesn't keep you from trying to "convince me", although at this point your arguments are so obnoxiously stupid that you've probably given up rationality and are just trying to flame me
Zedwardson wrote:
I do not think it unreasonable to expect that the other player might want to play it out even if you have a material lead. Also, at lower levels endgame play is so bad that you can easily reverse it. Also, some people ENJOY playing endgames.
if you sign up for a 10 minute a side game, expect to play 20 minutes.
You have named a scenario in which a player shouldn't be expected to resign
Material lead (as opposed to crushing advantage)
Low level play
You fail to argue the assertion that there is no scenario in which a player should be expected to resign. Obviously not every player should always resign no matter what, that would lead to not a single game of chess ever being played. We're arguing that there are times where someone is expected to resign
Pawn355 wrote:
My chess club members like to play things out and say I resign too quickly. Regular online players think it's rude to play games out. ????
If you're threshold for when to continue the game is more "optimistic" than other people within reason, that's fine. There's no chess council for when to resign, you have to use your own judgement. I've started to not resign unless there's an easy and obvious way for my opponent to win. If you never resign though, you're wasting other player's time.
FutureRain wrote:
That happened to me many time: i was completely losing, but then i won or made a draw somehow. Thats why i usually never resign, because there is still a small percentage of hope.
This is only the case for low rated games. It doesn't hold for games between experienced players.
GM_MICHAL_KARPOV wrote:
Players who don`t resign in a so called lost position should be admired for their ability to see what others can not see....a potential WIN. Remember you can only make a judgement on the standing of a game after a move has been made, the next move can change the fortune of both players
You have no idea what chess games are like between decent players. Unlike you, decent chess players aren't going to drop their queen every 5 moves. Swindling you in a completely losing position might be easy, but there are positions where any *good* chess player will win every single time, short of having a stroke and dying in the middle of the game.
onemarathon1947 wrote:
I once had some one infuriate me so much that I purposely got two queens and went about wiping his remaining pieces and pawns off the board. I would have thought that that would be humiliating to the other player. But some people are beyond embarrassment.
There's a lichess bot called cruelbot that does the same thing. When it's winning, it will deliberately make inaccurate moves to extend the game, and it tries to capture every single one of your pieces before checkmating you.
But soooooo many stalemates I’ve achieved! It’s a tactic to make a loss into a stalemate, just as effectively as preventing losses in war! 😎
Steve97a wrote:
I AM THE STALEMATE KING !!!!!!! FEAR THE STALEMATE KING !!!!!
Lol
Jul 7, 2018
0
#1780
@Enderman1323. Here here!! While it may be frustrating to persons on the opposite end Every player has the right to play out their game and learn from it. Every human chess player blunders ( and can recall losing a won game as a result of an oversight/mistake etc. At best they recover and manage a draw at worst they lose and learn. In each case had their opponent resigned when it was "apparent" they were going to lose, they would not have been able to have earned the win or draw ( "stalemates by sloppy end game play not withstanding" ). This is a timeless argument and one that is perpetuated by players learning the game on both ends; however outside of the discussions and good points for not resigning made here, I will refer all to Mr. GSerper's well summarised article published on the subject on chess.com. In the end he states that the best way to end your frustration with players who don't resign is to "Learn to mate them efficiently". Chess is a contest that you are trying to win. Learn your mating patterns and end games to bring it to its quickest conclusion 
. If I am on the other end I will expect no less and learn from the experience. If I am on the winning end, I likewise will look to practice my end games in these scenarios. 
.
Maybe they believe we will stalemate them!
It happens far more often than it should. It's epidemic how often someone will be up a knight, rook, queen, or even more and refuse to win. Should the person who is down so much resign? Probably. But given how often us low rated players stalemate (or even worse lose) when being up a rook or more it's understandable why so many people dont resign. I've had games against otherwise perfectly capable players where it was a lone king against a king and queen, and with even a little bit of time trouble the stalemate is found because the pesky king will not co-operate.