People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

With hesitating I mean whether it is a cheater or not (if 10 other people also think so I know I am right).

I am new here and don't exactly know how or where to make comments.

Anyway, I have no more to say, just feeling disappointed.

@tegelviken.   It sounds like you may want to click on the Orange "New Topic" button and start a conversation on this subject.  You have mistakenly joined a conversations about "People who do not resign in a lost position" and thus your comments are off topic and misaligned on this posting thread.

If you want to start a discussion on your topic, go right ahead and tap on the "New Topic" button and start the conversation ( plenty will see/join in and comment and this people will be commenting on the topic you want to discuss as opposed to here where we are disscussing another topic.

Oh yes. Players are legally allowed to waste their time playing on in a hopeless position. I'm also legally allowed to call you an idiot, which means that you must be an idiot. You can be losing, but have hope for a draw/win. You can also be losing and not have hope for a draw/win. Examples of playing on in the former don't prove it's reasonable in the latter. The vast majority of 1600+ rated players know when to resign, they're smart enough to see that some positions just don't have any hope.

Never resigning at a reasonably high level of play shouldn't be considered "acceptable" because the opponent should "just deal with it". You might get enjoyment out of playing out 20+ more moves in a winning position so you can find a fast mate, but not many other people do. Projecting feelings you claim to possess onto other people isn't an argument.

I can't believe how many times I've had to say this

Presenting one situation in which not resigning is reasonable does not prove the case for all situations.

Right, but good players can't be reasonably expected to accidentally stalemate. You're talking about an entirely different echelon of chess skills, of course the same rules aren't going to apply

In *losing* positions you have to think harder

In *lost* positions, no amount of thinking will result in a good move

Also, in daily chess, you aren't tied down to the board until the game is over, so you can play each move in a few seconds and it's no big deal.

Yes, you can win from a losing position, but there are also lost positions, in which case it's best to resign, as there's no reasonable chance of saving the game.

The more that a player like Enderman complains, the more I will play on in a lost position. If an opponent feels they are wasting their time playing, they can always quit. (Heehee)

you might have won a piece by playing 9. b4

you can almost always find a tactic  to turn the tides

I like the Knight promotion in that last game. Knight is much more forcing due to the check with mate in a few moves.

White was threatening mate in one. The underpromotion of the knight was the ONLY way Black could checkmate in the middlegame.

wow

You can't even directly address anything I say because you know you're so incapable of critical thinking you don't stand a chance. You deliberately don't think through your arguments, and you convince yourself through emotional self-righteous justification that you're right. You couldn't make a decent argument if your life depended on it.

I'm not going to bother quoting every single person that made the exact same argument (Hey, at least you guys tried, which is one level above LadyMisil)

Examples of turning the tides in complicated positions, or in games against low level players are great and all, but the results can't be applied to games where a win is simple and the opponent is clearly more than good enough to find it

I know the chess.com forums aren't exactly Mensa HQ, but nobody is even addressing the actual debate, which is whether or not there exist scenarios in which a player can be expected to resign.

Post your turnaround victories on another thread, unless they actually apply here, please.

I guess Enderman is the self appointed authority on IQ, lol!

@LadyMisil and all.  Enderman has a solidly held position he believes in despite evidence to the contrary.  i.e. The many valid examples cited here and documented/writen about and viewed at the super GM level.  ( for example this article published here just a few days ago with GM and Super GM examples  https://www.chess.com/article/view/is-all-fair-in-chess.  This is a passionate subject in chess and those whom are offended by those who are determined to fight/play out games ( with a small percentage of documented wins/draws ) will remain so in most cases; however, passion for one side of the argument without acknowledgment of concrete evidence at every chess level to the opposite is a special brand of thinking.   If given concrete evidence to the contrary disproving ones "factual" argument and one choses to still maintain their "opinions" regardless then you have to accept that our work here has been long done and the person is more than entitled to hold fast to their opinion regardless that it is proven incorrect.  

Well first, I do not think there is any kind of obligation to “sportsmanship” on the Internet. I used to be just like Enderman, and politely resigning in lost positions, until I noticed a number of opponents being “unsportsmanlike”. Well, I soon found out there is no accountability on the Internet. There is no Internet police to enforce laws, much less niceties and polite behavior. The Internet is a verbal wild, Wild West. To anyone crying for fairness, or for following unspoken rules of behavior, much less politeness ... well, good luck!

My first comment (in another forum for another game, not chess) was an innocent one in which I made a good, polite suggestion. Someone misunderstood, and before you knew it, war broke out on that forum. The Internet is a totally different thing from real life. And so it is with online chess as opposed to sitting with a friend and playing a nice game of chess for both of you to enjoy. Totally different. And still a bit different from tournament chess. So any comparison with Internet chess and real life chess is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.

Also, there are many different kinds of people and players who get online. Some may have never entered a real life tournament before. Some may still be in grade school. Some may just want a friendly game to pass the time and not exercise their chess skills to the limit. How can there be one code of conduct for everyone on the Internet, even if it could be enforced which it cannot? So why try?

Accept the way things are and you will be a lot less frustrated, Enderman. That or give up Internet chess.

Or get Chess.com to create and enforce “Sportsmanship” rules. I would even be on your side if you could do that.

I leard of my life "never resing"

I've never resigned in a lost position. Mostly because a lost position is already lost, the game is literally over. A lost position is checkmate or someones clock has run out, so it wouldnt make any sense to resign AFTER the game is over. Lost is past tense. That would be like suggesting a draw with only two kings left on the board. 

I have resigned losing positions though. But very rarely. I think both ladymisil and silledad have really good points, and we have to take into consideration the extremely wide range of players for online chess. This isn't a chess tournament in a hotel convention room.

I almost never resign a chess game because of the reasons I play chess. I play for the companionship, the interaction, and as a result hopefully the fun. Resigning would defeat my whole purpose for playing. I have resigned if I or the other person has to leave, but usually in that case we both resign. (not call it a draw). But I've probably only resigned about a dozen games ever in my whole life solely because of a bad position.