People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

Enderman said:

“... you're a psychopath ...”

“... thanks for jumping right into being nasty ...”

“... you're just being obnoxious and unhelpful.”

“... grow up or get off the forum.”

Well, Enderman, since you are being all grown up by resorting to name-calling, I can play that, too!

Pompous ass! Windbag! Stuffed shirt! Bug up your butt! LOL!!

It's 'polite' to let someone win too and to not checkmate them!

Waiting 45 minutes without making a move is a different scenario to playing on and not resigning.  But it's still what you have to be ready for if you choose to play a 60 minute game of chess you commit 2 hours of your time to it.  If my opponent doesn't move I just do other things instead.

I want to get to 2000 in blitz 

I also don't like players that take too long 

1. "I studied formal logic in college." An appeal to authority, as this unverifyable claim doesn't actually show that you understand a fallacy fallacy.

2. "Contradicting yourself debunks your stance." Yes, but it doesn't debunk my conclusion. Even if I was projecting my tendency to project my feelings onto someone else, it doesn't mean they weren't still projecting themselves. If my argument were fallacious, it wouldn't be "debate over" like you said.

3. "I never said you were wrong". You said debate over. Unless you were conceding defeat, that means you thought you had conclusively won. 

4. "Not to mention that your entire argument is precisely a projection of feelings into others..." Allow me to carefully reword my argument, so you can't misinterpret it again. There exists positions, between players of some rating, style, in a game of some time control, in which it is obnoxious to not resign, and playing on is futile. Just because someone is acting obnoxious, doesn't make them an obnoxious person. There might be players that don't understand why it's polite to resign sometimes.

5. I never misrepresented your argument? What are you talking about?

As far as the ad-hominem attack, I concede that it wasn't an argument, but rather added on to the argument as a response to your snottiness.

6. "He did project his feelings" So you say debate over because I contradict myself, and then concede the point anyways? So what I said was a perfect contradiction to his argument, and simultaneously invalid? You're the one contradicting yourself here now, considering that you still insist I'm projecting my tendency to project.

7. By a lost position, I mean a position in which there is no reasonable expectation to win. A lot of people are taking issue with this word, so I'll clarify. It's a subjective definition, and the threshold between losing and lost is different between games depending on things like rating and time control.

8. There are many factors that can influence how well someone plays

I have clarified my definition of lost accordingly

9. There's always a chance (Expected score is never 0%). Technically true, but practically false. Yes, the chance of saving a game isn't ever 0%, but it can very well be 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.01%. Either there must exist a point in any given game where playing on isn't worth the effort, or the chance of winning can be made arbitrarily small without resigning being necessary.

In reality, it's obnoxious to play on after the chance of winning gets unreasonably low. If I'm up a queen in an OTB middlegame against a 1600 rated opponent, their odds of winning are about 1-2%. Most people would resign here, but if they play on, no problem. If they then lose another rook, and they have no attacking chance or hope for a draw, then I might get irritated. Their chance of winning here is about 0.001%, and relies on me either having a stroke or a heart attack.

10. "I already explained" Ok, consider your explanation refuted. This claim is pointless and weak already.

11. I wasn't making one argument in those "pages", I was responding to a bunch of different users.

12. "Where is the source of your statistic?"

Common sense? Some 1800 games end in checkmate, but most are people allowing their opponent to play out a nice checkmate. You'll hardly find a game where an 1800 plays on an endgame a queen down against an equal opponent. Trying to force me to prove the claim isn't productive, because it's already obvious, but I can try if you really want?

13. By do the right thing, I mean be considerate of other people. Even if you have no problem 

14. As I've addressed in point 9, but would like to reiterate, there's no position with a 0% chance of losing, but at some point it's not worth the time and effort to try saving the game. At the same time, you're wasting your opponent's time.

15. "Besides, it isn't as though you, Enderman, specifically care about your opponent either".

Here's that handy site you liked earlier: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Again I'll reiterate, not saying that they're assholes for playing on, only that their *acting* obnoxious

Your only evidence however, is that "the opponent is an asshole for using a chance to enjoy the game as well as to maybe turn around the game"

Oh perfect! We get to link the other one as well!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

considering that what I actually said was that they were acting obnoxious for playing on in a situation where there is *no reasonable chance* to turn the game around.

16. Forgive me, I meant sociopath. I mixed the two up. And I never claimed to make a clinical diagnosis. If they believe in their argument, they are a sociopath by definition. They have no conscience, and they only serve to benefit themselves.

I was trying to get them to abandon their claim, because believing it to be true would make them a (sociopath). I wasn't using them being a (sociopath) to devalue their argument, so it's not ad-hominem.

17. "You should just fuck off at this point, because you're not even being respectful."

You don't deserve my respect. You act like a snotty prick and expect me to act respectful? I thought etiquette was stupid? You don't treat me with respect, why should I return the favor?

18. " you seem to think that humans are either perfect robots, or that they shouldn't enjoy the game the way they want to as long as they follow the rules and treat you civilly". 

I don't need to post the scarecrow link again, do I? I thought you took a college course on this stuff, maybe you need a bit of a refresher?

I never said that humans were perfect robots, but once again clarified in point 9. High level chess players however, are extremely unlikely to commit blunders in certain positions. As far as having fun playing "the way they want", it becomes problematic when it intrudes on other people's rights to play how they want. The same reason murderers and thieves aren't allowed to live "how they want", because it hurts other people. Anticipating your response, yes I know the murderer example is an extreme example, it's just to prove a point. Same thing with the difference between being discouraged from not resigning and being disallowed to commit crime. The comparison still holds.

19. The whole authority thing was a parody ad-hominem attack using the earlier establishment of them as a sociopath. They said I was acting as a "self appointed authority on IQ" so I said they were acting as a false authority on social issues. I deliberately constructed an argument as clearly poor as possible with the same structure as their argument, to show that it was a poor argument.

20. "I could care less about your feelings". Great. That's why I presented a logical argument, but as it turned out, you didn't pay much attention to that either.

21. You end with a mischaracterisation, that I care a disproportionate amount about resigning, because I'm discussing it in the forums. The same way you care a disproportionate amount about someone having the wrong opinion, because you typed out that emotionally-charged essay. I can play chess games when my opponent drags them out, it's just less fun. 

Every time I prove that resigning is sometimes best, you switch to saying that I have no place to question people that never resign because it's "within the rules". Every time I reiterate that something being in the rules doesn't make it a polite/reasonable thing to do, you switch back to saying that people should play on in their own interest. Pick one to stick with, stop reasoning in circles.

[1. "I studied formal logic in college." An appeal to authority, as this unverifyable claim doesn't actually show that you understand a fallacy fallacy.]

Not an appeal to authority, since I never actually presented this as an argument, I presented it as a personal warning to not waste your time. If you choose to not believe my credetials and my learning experience, then this is fine, but you'd be wasting your time. And since you care so much about time apparently, I thought it was considerate to let you know. But since you won't heed the advice then, fine by me, waste your time on trying to teach me about fallacies I already know about.

[2. "Contradicting yourself debunks your stance." Yes, but it doesn't debunk my conclusion.]

I never said it does. You should stop with the dishonesty and the lying about what I'm claiming.

[Even if I was projecting my tendency to project my feelings onto someone else, it doesn't mean they weren't still projecting themselves. If my argument were fallacious, it wouldn't be "debate over" like you said.]

It would be, because if your only justification is fallacious, then this leaves the conclusion without premise, in which case I can simpply dismiss your conclusion because the burden of proof holds. I ahve no reason to actually believe any claim that you put forward, but less so if there is literally no valid justification.

[3. "I never said you were wrong". You said debate over. Unless you were conceding defeat, that means you thought you had conclusively won.]

Debates are not about winning. Thinking that they are is naive. Debate over could have meant a range of things. All it meant is that I can dimiss your conclusion since the stance by which you defend this conclusion is invalid. It doesn't mean it's a wrong conclusion, but it does mean it is dismissible. 

[4. "Not to mention that your entire argument is precisely a projection of feelings into others..." Allow me to carefully reword my argument, so you can't misinterpret it again. There exists positions, between players of some rating, style, in a game of some time control, in which it is obnoxious to not resign,...]

Obnoxious is subjective and dependent upon the feelings of the receiver. Hence, this is a projection of your feelings, whether you wish to admit it or not. Any notion of obnoxious is subjective. If you really find it obnonoxious, then you don't have the temperament to play chess, as glamdring already said. I have no reason to think that your version of polite is correct, and in fact, I don't. It is impolite to say that someone is being obnoxious just because they wish to take advantage of a non-zero chance to win, which is what one should do since the very purpose of playing the game competitively is to win. You can think I'm a psychopath, and I think you need help. Politeness is subjective, and you're no one to dictate that I'm a psychopath based on your subjective-ass definition, when you could very well be the psychopath. For the record, doctor certified diagnosis say I'm not a psychopath, and since they are more reliable on the subject than you are, I will choose to uphold their conclusion, which is more probable to be true.

[...and playing on is futile.]

When I discuss your response to my explanation, we'll see if this is really true or not.

[Just because someone is acting obnoxious, doesn't make them an obnoxious person. There might be players that don't understand why it's polite to resign sometimes.]

This once again demonstrates that your conclusion hinges on your individual notion of what politeness means, which is skewed. Hence, a projection of your feelings onto the rest of us. Politeness is dependent upon the feelings of an individual, as is any notion of fun, obnoxiousness, etc. So I never misrepresented your argument, you apparently just can't distinguish reliably between a projection of feelings and not.

[5. I never misrepresented your argument? What are you talking about?]

Yes, you did. You claimed I said something I didn't say.

[As far as the ad-hominem attack, I concede that it wasn't an argument, but rather added on to the argument as a response to your snottiness.]

Completely false, considering the ad-hominem attack that I called out when I cited the link was not one which was directed at me. Geez, it doesn't seem like you're reading your own responses and putting them into context with mine. If the reading comprehension is that bad, then let me knowm, so I know to not waste my time with you.

[6. "He did project his feelings" So you say debate over because I contradict myself, and then concede the point anyways?]

You do know it is possible to concede to a point while also demonstrating that an argument in which said point is contained is invalid, right? I hope you're not so dense as to think otherwise.

[So what I said was a perfect contradiction to his argument, and simultaneously invalid?]

It is a contradiction to both his argument and your own. You were both projecting feelings onto each other, and the only reason there was a disagreement is because your feelings collide.

[You're the one contradicting yourself here now, considering that you still insist I'm projecting my tendency to project.]

This doesn't contradict anything I've said, actually, so no, this claim is wrong.

[7. By a lost position, I mean a position in which there is no reasonable expectation to win. A lot of people are taking issue with this word, so I'll clarify. It's a subjective definition,...]

Then it's again a projection of your own feelings and your own intuition onto everyone else. It appears no here is upholding this subjective definition, and there is no reason that has been provided as to why anyone should. Your definition of reasonable expectation is also very unrigorous and unobjective relative to the definition of a lost position, so it isn't exactly coherent.

[8. There are many factors that can influence how well someone plays

I have clarified my definition of lost accordingly]

Your definition doesn't account for the external factors that influence how someone plays AND how this influence manipulates the non-zero chance I already mentioned, so your clarification is pretty useless.

[9. There's always a chance (Expected score is never 0%). Technically true, but practically false. Yes, the chance of saving a game isn't ever 0%, but it can very well be 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.01%.]

In many occasions it is this small, but in many others it isn't. Do you want to present a statistic for every sigle game occurred in history that shows that in most occasions it is this small? I'll wait then.

[Either there must exist a point in any given game where playing on isn't worth the effort, or the chance of winning can be made arbitrarily small without resigning being necessary.]

The point at which playing the game isn't worth the effort gets determined by the player in question who would resign, not the other player. Do I want to play for extra time given my chances, or do I prefer just endig the match early for [insert reason]?

[In reality, it's obnoxious...]

Every time you use that word, you're projecting your feelings. It's that simple. The evidence to suggest that this is the case is that you're realistically one of the few people who considers it obnoxious in this thread. This says more about you than about anyone else.

[...to play on after the chance of winning gets unreasonably low.]

You haven't defined what unreasonably low is.

[If I'm up a queen in an OTB middlegame against a 1600 rated opponent, their odds of winning are about 1-2%. Most people would resign here, but if they play on, no problem. If they then lose another rook, and they have no attacking chance or hope for a draw, then I might get irritated.]

If you get irritated this easily, then again, you lack the temperament to play chess. Also, considering an action to be obnoxious because it irritates you is BY DEFINITION a projection of feelings. Once again, your entire stance relies on qualities that are subjectively assigned, and by arguing that these notions should somehow characterize the behavior of others and that these rules of politeness should apply to others or else, it is a projection of feelings. That is, whenever your terms are not poorly defined, but the only to not define them poorly is by admitting that they're subjective. The moment you admit that this is subjective, you've invalidated your conclusion, because your judgement of whether it is worth the effort to keep playing reasonably depennds that you evaluate how these qualities all apply to the situation, but they're all subjective.

[10. "I already explained" Ok, consider your explanation refuted. This claim is pointless and weak already.]

There was no refutation involved whatsoever. Indeed, your claim is pointless and weak already, but you haven't refutyed mine. 

[12. "Where is the source of your statistic?"

Common sense?]

Common sense is not a realible source, and for starters common sense is also subjective. Many things that common sense would say are true are never true. Lackluster.

[Some 1800 games end in checkmate, but most are people allowing their opponent to play out a nice checkmate. You'll hardly find a game where an 1800 plays on an endgame a queen down against an equal opponent. Trying to force me to prove the claim isn't productive, because it's already obvious, but I can try if you really want?]

Claiming it is obvious doesn't manke it true. Many things in the world are "obvious", yet still false.

 [13. By do the right thing, I mean be considerate of other people. Even if you have no problem]

Yet again, it is inconsiderate to tell a person they're obnoxious and unreasonable because something irritates you even though it isn't an absolute thing, so it isn't your place to make your standards apply to everyone else. Also you said earlier that just because the act is obnoxious it doesn't mean they are obnoxious. If you act obnoxious, then you are obnoxious. This is what personal adjectives are.

 [14. As I've addressed in point 9, but would like to reiterate, there's no position with a 0% chance of losing, but at some point it's not worth the time and effort to try saving the game.]

This isn't for you to decide.

[At the same time, you're wasting your opponent's time.]

And? Playing chess already is a waste of time? The easiest way to not waste time is to start the game and immediately resign, especially if you already know your opponent is much more skilled than you. This is also the best way to be considerate. That defeats the point of playing the game. If you're in it for the competition, then as long as you're following the rules, you shouldn't care for your opponent, you should play to your interest, not theirs, in the same way that they'll play to their interest, not yours. Expecting someone to be considerate for their opponent in a competition is unreasonable, unless this lack of consideration puts the opponent at significant health risk or it breaks the law. 

 [15. "Besides, it isn't as though you, Enderman, specifically care about your opponent either".

Here's that handy site you liked earlier: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem]

This isn't an ad hominem, since personal characterization is actually relevant to the point I'm making concerning playing in one's self interest, and it also isn't actually an attack.

[Again I'll reiterate, not saying that they're assholes for playing on, only that their *acting* obnoxious]

Your only evidence however, is that "the opponent is an asshole for using a chance to enjoy the game as well as to maybe turn around the game"]

A projection of feelings.

[Oh perfect! We get to link the other one as well!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

considering that what I actually said was that they were acting obnoxious for playing on in a situation where there is *no reasonable chance* to turn the game around.]

"No reasonable chance" is a poorly defined adjective, and even if you try to well-define it, it will inevitably rely on a subjective characterization that will depend upon feelings.

[16. Forgive me, I meant sociopath. I mixed the two up. And I never claimed to make a clinical diagnosis.]

Then your claim is invalid, although it is an ad hominem, so it was invalid anyway. If you are nto making a diagnosis, then claiming someone is sick is unsupported, because determining whether someone is sick or not requires diagnosis.

[If they believe in their argument, they are a sociopath by definition.]

No, it isn't part of the definition. You're wrong yet again.

[They have no conscience, and they only serve to benefit themselves.]

What is your evidence that they lack a conscience? Whatever way you put it, you're making a diagnosis.

[I was trying to get them to abandon their claim, because believing it to be true would make them a (sociopath). I wasn't using them being a (sociopath) to devalue their argument, so it's not ad-hominem.]

You were using it to devalue their argument, though, because you said that someone like them with non-existing empathy could not grasp the idea of politeness you were presenting. 

[17. "You should just fuck off at this point, because you're not even being respectful."

You don't deserve my respect. You act like a snotty prick and expect me to act respectful? I thought etiquette was stupid? You don't treat me with respect, why should I return the favor?]

You're the one who started insulted everyone else before we interjected. You're being a narcissistic arrogant prick who thinks that disagreeing with your skewed, subjective standards of politeness and reasonability makes you a sociopath despite there being evidence to the contrary presented by psychologists, and who on top of that thinks that playing the game the way it is intended to means you're acting obnoxious. Despite all this, we treated you respectfully and without insult. You also called other people idiotic and other things, all because you're unable to justify your standards, so you decide to try to invalidate theirs with these insults. You're disrespectful not only to me but to several others in here. I didn't do anything to disrespect you, and you think I don't deserve your respect? I think you need to see a psychologist. Snotty? I never pretended to be superior, all I ever did was show that your arguments are fallacious, your insults baseless, and that no one has to agree with your stupid standards. The only one being conceited right here and now is you.

[18. " you seem to think that humans are either perfect robots, or that they shouldn't enjoy the game the way they want to as long as they follow the rules and treat you civilly". 

I don't need to post the scarecrow link again, do I? I thought you took a college course on this stuff, maybe you need a bit of a refresher?]

It is pointless to keep posting links about fallacies when you evidently fail to understand them yourself. You're wasting your time by doing this.

[I never said that humans were perfect robots, but once again clarified in point 9. High level chess players however, are extremely unlikely to commit blunders in certain positions. As far as having fun playing "the way they want", it becomes problematic when it intrudes on other people's rights to play how they want.]

There are no rights being intruded here. If you don't want to waste time in a game of chess, then end it yourself, or don't play the game. You don't have the right to have your opponent resign on you while at the same time taking away their right to use the opportunity to learn as well as to use the non-zero chance according to their own judgement. So no, they're not intruding on your rights to play the game however you want, and if that annoys, then I'll repeat what glamdrig sais: you don't have the temperament to play chess. You don't link playing a game a certain way? Then don't. It's that simple. [The same reason murderers and thieves aren't allowed to live "how they want", because it hurts other people.  Anticipating your response, yes I know the murderer example is an extreme example, it's just to prove a point. Same thing with the difference between being discouraged from not resigning and being disallowed to commit crime. The comparison still holds.]

No, the comparison doesn't hold. You're not being hurt by playing a few extra minutes in a game. It's also not your right. If you don't like spending extra time, then let me repeat: don't play the game. 

[19. The whole authority thing was a parody ad-hominem attack using the earlier establishment of them as a sociopath. They said I was acting as a "self appointed authority on IQ" so I said they were acting as a false authority on social issues.]

You are indeed acting as a self-authority on IQ, calling people idiotic, falsely diagnosing them with problems, even though you claim otherwise, and calling people unreasonable for doing things a certain way.

[I deliberately constructed an argument as clearly poor as possible with the same structure as their argument, to show that it was a poor argument.]

All it showed is that your argument is poor.

[20. "I could care less about your feelings". Great. That's why I presented a logical argument, but as it turned out, you didn't pay much attention to that either.]

Your argument was far from logical. Not only did you insult everyone, but you misrepresented my argument. On top of this, you lied about not projecting your feelings, when you clearly were. Not to mention, every concept your premise includes is an inevitable appeal to emotion.

 [21. You end with a mischaracterisation, that I care a disproportionate amount about resigning, because I'm discussing it in the forums. The same way you care a disproportionate amount about someone having the wrong opinion, because you typed out that emotionally-charged essay. I can play chess games when my opponent drags them out, it's just less fun.]

Okay, why should I care if it is less fun for you? It isn't fun for me to lose a game, it doesn't mean I shouldn't resign in some situations according to what I consider worth my effort playing in a losing or lost position. It also isn't fun to be playing in a losing position even if I do have a very large chance of recovery, it doesn't mean I shouldn't play it either. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try to defeat me just because it is less fun for me to lose. 

[Every time I prove that resigning is sometimes best, you switch to saying that I have no place to question people that never resign because it's "within the rules".]

I never actually said that, partially because you never proved it, but mostly because I never said it.

[Every time I reiterate that something being in the rules doesn't make it a polite/reasonable thing to do, you switch back to saying that people should play on in their own interest. Pick one to stick with, stop reasoning in circles.]

How is that reasoning in circles? Those are separate, independent points.

The difference is that

1. You started the whole personal attacking thing a few pages back

and

2. The names I called you are accurate and based in argument, whereas your names (and everything else you've said so far) are pulled out of your ass.

But sure, you're the mature one!

Well, Enderman, looks like I can add liar to the list of names I can call you.  You were the one to start with the name calling, not me.

As for your definition of psychopath (actually the correct term is sociopath), I am polite, considerate, and helpful to those that deserve it, and the opposite to those like you who do not deserve it.  So your definition is flawed.  I am only a sociopath when you and I are concerned and not me in general.  But you being so self-centered, I do not expect you to understand this.  You seem to think the world evolves around you.

And that is why you are a pompous ass.

Enderman1323 wrote a book titled FROM SMART ASS TO DUMB TO ASS

??????!!!!!!!!!!!

It's funny to see people get mad and write for hours and no one even reads it. Even the people in the argument could care less what the other writes...lol. They are basically writing to themselves. 

 Don’t give up in the middle of the game if you don’t think you’re doing well – or even if you’re in big trouble. There’s always a chance that you’ll have a flash of brilliance or that your opponent might slip up. Chess is a kaleidoscope – it’s ever changing – and opportunities suddenly appear. – Bobby Fischer

hi\

20000090000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000jjjjjjjjwhrgfvysgdhbfahbdsherbvewdbfnfermvd,m52b24krfebr2h4gjktegt4h5kbght4uwrkjtrb5g7t8537ugt0b8f2ij4hrv08gyuf4v4iwfrfhrvafsu ,ishfri.vswbxybndlvyog54undloieruiikliwr-iptxgfr 9oia3qyesOWQLRRGJVGUTYVGTYUWEB RTB EIBR 3QUEVRW8 8 8U U9                                   GWEYTGFUYGWIYCGRD QE GURYUEVUTGHEGHDFGDIWGHVT4WGFUDSISFKR3BEHFIRHEBVHFIVVBFVVHVHNB FBJHVJBFRHJHBVFHHVBFHEVBFHHJBVHF FH HHGJFB4WHESHJRFWMRHSUE3REWFURWWW RGHJETHB4NREGD

chess.com

1. Right... Still not an argument. You choose to go after things I say that are clearly not arguments, don't know why I should be any different.

2. "I never said [Contradicting yourself] does [debunk your conclusion]." You said 'debate over'. You're now being unclear about which debate you're referring to, but in any case, it's equivalent to the fallacy fallacy. Same exact argument holds for your second point under 2

3. Why are you so obsessed with making sure the vocabulary used is accurate when it's perfectly clear what I mean? By me winning, I mean that you concede your point. That's what it is to win a debate. Most debates don't end in such a debate, because the side that would be losing is too stubborn and butthurt to concede. I can see that you'll be no different, considering how you act superior for no good reason.

If my argument had a demonstrable fallacy, you would dismiss my argument. You wouldn't dismiss the conclusion, unless by dismiss the conclusion you mean refuse to consider it until another argument is made, but it's obvious you don't consider that the definition because by saying "debate over" you're demonstrating your refusal to consider another argument on the same topic.

4. If I have beliefs or views, and I project those onto other people, it means that I think they have the same beliefs/views that I possess, with no evidence but because I possess them. Wanting people to follow a standard of decency does not involve projection.

5. Are you going to tell me what I claimed that you didn't say? Or are you going to try (unsuccessfully) to make me search for what's either a needle in a haystack, or more likely, completely non-existent. You refuse to even tell me what argument I misrepresented.

You made it completely unclear what "ad-hominem attack" you were talking about, I assumed it was when I called you Einstein. Either way, it was probably a response to a similar attitude from them.

6. "You do know it is possible to concede to a point while also demonstrating that an argument in which said point is contained is invalid, right?" Yes, that's why I asked if you were doing exactly that. Because it's possible, but stupid. It's the nitpicking I was talking about, where you try to 1-up me on things that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

My original statement was just a claim that he was projecting his feelings onto others. It needed no more evidence, as there was enough in his comment for the truth of the statement to be evident. Despite this, you still accused me of projecting my own views, an accusation that is literally impossible to prove true, considering I hadn't even presented my reasoning, only a claim that you conceded was true. Depending on how well I presented it, my reasoning was either nowhere to be found, or it was obvious based on my opponent's arguments. The contradiction is that even if I was projecting, you wouldn't be able to know

The first 6 points and many others are entirely irrelevant to the debate at hand. I don't like conceding when I'm not wrong, but if you refuse to try to work towards a conclusion on these points I will be forced to concede every single irrelevant point in an attempt to make this debate more manageable.

7. I explained in point 4 why this wasn't projection. My definition (or any other) of reasonable is completely subjective, so obviously it's not going to be "rigorous or objective". I'm not trying to pass a law, I'm trying to debate a social standard. I looked up for example, "10 unwritten Rules of Social Relationships" which is the best fast thing I found under unwritten rules. Considering the rules are from a place called asperger cafe (https://aspergercafe.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/the-ten-unwritten-rules-of-social-relationships/), it's reasonable to assume the purpose of the website is to teach well-established social rules to people that struggle in social situations. (Speaking of, I took a college statistics class in which we would use statements like 'it is reasonable to assume'. Complete objectivity has its place in classical math, but it's not good at dealing with real-world problems).

Looking at the rules, every single one uses subjective language, just like a social rule on resigning. Every single one depends on the situation, just like resigning. You won't get arrested for breaking any of the rules, just like you won't get in trouble with FIDE for not resigning. 

8. Obviously, the percentage was just a simple demonstration of my argument. In reality, you have to reason out the winning chances for yourself, and while doing this you can automatically account for the possibility of external factors. You might not know all extraneous factors, but you don't need to, you can still know the average chance of winning with the possibility of extraneous factors considered.

9. Again, it's up to the individual player to try to figure out winning chances. On top of that, decisive games between strong players usually end in resignation, which can't give us an objective evaluation. Consider a hypothetical infinite match between 1600s where match exhaustion isn't a factor (The players don't get more tired as the match goes on.) Surely, I could name endgame positions, perhaps when one side has at least a queen, the opponent has no pieces, and no potential passed pawns, there's no immediate stalemate/checkmate threats, and there's no time issue, such that the winning player could win a huge majority of the time. Obviously this is an extreme example, but it serves to prove that positions exist where there's no reasonable chance for one side to save the game.

As far as being one of the only ones on the thread that considers not resigning obnoxious, there's no evidence that the thread is an accurate representation of overall opinion on chess.com, or in the chess community in general. Especially considering most of the players on the thread make emotionally charged claims and don't back up their claims at all (and by most I mean everyone but you). LadyMisil adds a special nastiness to her baseless accusations, but aside from that everyone's acted like her. I'm definitely well backed among master level players. Even Nakamura, the patron saint of not giving up hope in bad positions, will still resign when things get hopeless.

And seriously? Not wanting to waste my time is the wrong temperament? Grandmasters don't like it when their opponents don't resign, someone (I forget who) even said they were irritated in a press conference when Nakamura delayed resigning in a hopeless position. Did he lack the temperament to play chess? What a stupid, irrelevant, ad hominem attack.

10. Okay, let me correct myself. You never explained.

11. I'll take this as a concession??

12. Here. We'll go over to lichess and look up classical games between 2000s (which is around 1800 on chess.com probably). We'll search for every common opening with at least 7500 plays. Then we'll look at the 4 most recent games to see how many times a game ends in checkmate, in a drawn out endgame. Even with your 'optimistic' perspective, comeback games from a certain point are extremely rare, so we don't need to look at those, but I'll note those if I find any.

Opening 1: Open Sicilian. 1 agreed draw, 2 resignations, and 1 game that ended on move 19, after black found and played out a mate in 2 in a position that was otherwise better for white. Clearly 0/2 for refusing to resign. (I won't count the checkmate game because the opponent never got the chance to resign to save his own time)

Opening 2: Open game, Nc3 Nf6. 3 resignations, 1 timeout in an even position. Consider it 0/5

Opening 3: French defense, 2. d4 d5. 1 draw, 3 resignations. you're 0/8.

Opening 4: Indian with c4. 1 draw, 2 resignations, 1 checkmate in a complex endgame that happened only a few moves after the endgame became clearly hopeless. Probably was allowed to be played because it's nice to let your opponent play out a checkmate. Especially considering black made each move in a few seconds. Here's the game if you really want to contest it: https://lichess.org/L0HJmnwr#0

Until then, 0/10

Opening 5: QGA. 1 timeout in an equal position, 1 6-move timeout???, 2 resignations. Correspondence games are included under classical for some reason, but that doesn't invalidate the point or the survey.

0/12

Opening 6: English. 2 resignations, 1 timeout in a worse (-2) position, 1 asshole who played on to the bitter end in a clear and then left the game out of spite when his opponent proved to not be a 5-year old so his opponent had to wait. Doesn't really help your case, especially considering it's against lichess rules, but I'll count it.

1/15

There we go. 1 out of 15 possible A-rated games were drawn out, and the one that was drawn out was clearly by someone that doesn't have the 'temperament to play chess'. So 1 weak example out of 15. There's your survey.

13. First of all, you can act obnoxious without being an obnoxious person overall. The same way someone can play chess poorly without being a poor chess player. There are good reasons why refusing to resign is irritating, and it's (as proven in 12) a consensus among strong players that resigning is the polite, reasonable thing to do. Expectation to resign is a social rule, not a FIDE rule, as I've already said it's not absolute. What do you mean inconsiderate? What's your absolute, logical definition of inconsiderate?

14. Right again. I can't force my opponent to resign. The same way I can't force someone not to leave the game and run down their time to spite me, then come back with a minute left and hope that I left. Both are attempts to try to win in a hopeless position, both very rarely work, and both are annoying and both players' time is wasted by not playing interesting chess. However, if I were to complain about someone doing this in the forums, I wouldn't get responses that say 'Oh, they can do whatever they want, it's just part of the game.' It's absurd that everyone here ties morality directly to legality. If this were the 1860's you would support slavery simply because it was legal. If someone said that owning slaves was bad, you would say 'They can do whatever they want, it's perfectly allowed and therefore justified'.

Do you know why people play chess? It's for fun. F-U-N. Do you know what that is? Can you comprehend why someone might have fun playing a game of chess, and might not have fun being forced to play on in a position where virtually no thinking is required to win? Expecting someone to be considerate for their opponent in a "competition" is still the same, with the exception that if something important is at stake, you might play on a little further just to make certain that you would lose. After that, the time-wasting argument still applies. It's still irrelevant, because my claim is true in general regardless of whether it's true in an important competition.

15. You're just inventing reasons to be an ass now. The only evidence I don't care about my opponent is that... I hold them to a standard of behavior?

I can't make any sense of the projection accusation, nor can I make any sense of what I don't have enough evidence for. There's an unclosed bracket, which really messed this up more and no elaboration on what I'm projecting or how.

No reasonable chance is a subjective attitude. The idea being that even if everyone has their own definition of no reasonable chance, they'll still resign eventually. Do you not know how social rules work, or are you deliberately ignoring them?

16. "blah blah blah you can't prove that their a sociopath" Unsurprisingly, you spend an inordinate amount of time on irrelevant points, because you know it's your best chance to score a little victory. Their argument relies on not caring at all about other people. She said that because she wasn't legally required to do something, she shouldn't do it. This shows a complete lack of understanding of basic social concepts as well as a lack of conscience. That's the definition. And I don't need to be a doctor to make an observation about someone.

"You were using it to devalue their argument, though, because you said that someone like them with non-existing empathy could not grasp the idea of politeness you were presenting." I was making it absolutely clear that their point doesn't stand in the first place.

17. Again, show me an example where I'm the one that started being nasty. Should be no problem for you, considering there are so many. In your first reply to me, you said "How ironic. You literally just contradicted yourself. This very claim of yours already debunks your stance. Debate over." You can't with any reasonability tell me this is your idea of respectful. You're a hypocritical piece of shit, and you have no idea what you're saying

18. Of course, you never explain what fallacy I don't understand, because you're argument is too weak to even present.

Okay, no right is being intruded upon. But again, whether something is moral does not depend on whether it's legal. It's still a rude thing to do, even if allowed. The only difference in structure between the murder argument and the resigning argument is in legality. I revise my murder statement to In a world where murder is legal, it's you're right to live how you want, including killing people. Therefore it's just fine to do. The way you hold "rights" on a pedestal, as if they're absolute truths and not just things we made up is, frankly, idiotic. Just because something is a right, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

19. I pointed out that in order for LadyMisil to believe in her own argument, she would need to be a sociopath by definition. I explained exactly how that is. The same way you're acting as a self-authority on social standards by DARING to ARGUE about something you're not an EXPERT in.

"All it showed is that your argument is poor" Yes, my argument was poor, so was theirs. The arguments were the exact same. You don't have "authority" to be allowed to make observations. Unless you think that chess.com is a genius community (in which case you're delusional, just look at this thread), I wasn't making any claims about IQ that weren't already evident.

20. "Your argument was far from logical" Again, no evidence provided, unsurprising. "Every concept your premise includes is an inevitable appeal to emotion", impossible. A premise is an assumption that something is true. You could say that how I argue my premises is illogical, but you'd need to actually provide evidence, and you're really not good at doing that. I will however, point out that calling me a liar instead of saying I'm wrong is an emotional appeal. It's literally impossible for you to know that I'm wrong in the case you mentioned, as I proved earlier, so... you have no ground to stand on.

21. If it's not fun for you to play on in a losing position, it means your not playing chess for fun. Which means you truly are wasting your time playing, as there's no chance you could ever make a living from chess. Maybe you're the one that doesn't have the 'mentality' to play chess.

As far as reasoning in circles, I concede that point.

You're absolutely right, I did start with the name-calling. Clever what you did there, switching personal attack with name-calling and hope I wouldn't notice. Good thing I'm not 8 years old, or that might have worked.

I never said you started with name-calling. I did, however, say that you started the personal attacks, and that is in fact true.

Comment #1883: "The more that a player like Enderman complains, the more I will play on in a lost position."

Not only admitting you refuse to even consider any arguments, but trying to make me angry by telling me you'll do the exact opposite of what I want to spite me. Good thing I'm not as rash and emotional as you are, or it might have worked!

Good thing we have someone like you here, who is smart enough to see through it all and convince us to stop. You're just so much better than we are!

I have no interest in continuing a game if I blunder. When you do it stops becoming about creating a beautiful structure and just becomes another petty conflict with another human being. I have limitless contempt for those who do.