Personally I don't give sh#t if a player wants play out the whole thing. It's not like waiting a couple of weeks after Christmas to open your presents, it's a stinking game you have won and it won't go away.
How about being alive for that last set of moves? Why draw out a misery of player just because you can?
The hope of winning in a lost position, is embarrasing. For them, not me.
Never resign!
Oh... my point is lost in a sea of stubborn idiots.
I will resign if i have made a blunder ( like losing queen or rook in equal game). but i will not resign if down like bishop to rook, or down a queen to 2 rooks. in a shellnut resigning is a button only if you are playing against a decent oppenent (who wont make dumb blunders) and you are absolutely screwed.
I am playing a correspondence (online) game right now where my opponent is hopelessly lost. I have a queen, a bishop, and 3 pawns against his rook and pawn. He has not resigned.
That is his right. He may take as long as he wants, and stretch it out until I checkmate him. That is my responsibility. I have no right to expect him to resign, even if it seems sensible.
When I sign up to play a game of chess, I expect to play by the rules--all the rules. If I don't like them, I don't play.
Ok first off why wouldent you torture your opponent its called being an asshole you should try it sometime but everytime i know that there is a 1% chance that ill lose i just think well at least i can give them a hard time wining.
One of the best ways for a beginning player to learn to win an endgame is to have someone else defeat him in it. Some players play through to the end so they can see proper technique in winning scenarios.
Personally I don't give sh#t if a player wants play out the whole thing. It's not like waiting a couple of weeks after Christmas to open your presents, it's a stinking game you have won and it won't go away.
How about being alive for that last set of moves? Why draw out a misery of player just because you can?
The hope of winning in a lost position, is embarrasing. For them, not me.
Like I said clown I don't give a sh#t if they draw it out.
No, you win a game three times so long as your first and second attempt don't make you look like a fool!
No top player has recalled that saying without knowing that difference, and anyone here who supports it is a 'fuckin' idiot!'
Sorry you but you post like you are on something.
I am playing a correspondence (online) game right now where my opponent is hopelessly lost. I have a queen, a bishop, and 3 pawns against his rook and pawn. He has not resigned.
That is his right. He may take as long as he wants, and stretch it out until I checkmate him. That is my responsibility. I have no right to expect him to resign, even if it seems sensible.
When I sign up to play a game of chess, I expect to play by the rules--all the rules. If I don't like them, I don't play.
+1
It says the OP is playing 1600 chess. If I was playing them, I'd never quit from a rook down or less....only 'cuz 1600 roams the flandered fields of patzerdom.
@ Lola I think think this Bozo would want you to resign if he had a passed pawn on the 5th rank.
I learn at every opportunity. I have taken out (eeked out is more truthful) a 2000ish player, sweating bullets all the way - not sure that at any moment they were going to run away with the game. I have lost to lesser players because I was over confident and blundered or wasn't focused enough. I've been badgered and ridiculed for believing that I might get a draw out of a game (they weren't even aware that many examples of such are given in Tactics Training - they recanted their comments ultimately). Its like any other competitive battle. Sometimes you're your own worst enemy sometimes they are (sometimes both?!). I'm grateful for every game, win or lose, and will continue to grow (or is the word growl - LOL).
While in tournaments not resigning in a hopeless position is considered poor etiquette, nobody forces you to resign here.
Oh... my point is lost in a sea of stubborn idiots.
What a love affair with the word "idiot"
you log in to chess.com each day, or however often you log in. All that is required of you is to see if t is your move. Then all you need to do is make a move. Making a move in a won game doesnt require a drastic investment of your time, or effort.
No, you win a game three times so long as your first and second attempt don't make you look like a fool!
No top player has recalled that saying without knowing that difference, and anyone here who supports it is a 'fuckin' idiot!'
Reported
Are these guys honestly hoping for the apocalypse coming? Why do people insist on playing games to the bitter end when everything else is failing, don't they have enough respect for the intelligence of the person who got them in that state in the first place?
I get it if there are REAL CHANCES available on the board, but not if they are wasting your time like my first two experiences in correspondance... I mean people, get a grip!
It's been my experience that most players under 1600 in blitz don't know how to checkmate efficiently, if at all. Should my egregious blunders put me on the losing side of such a game, I will play to the bitter end. I've drawns and even won many hopelessly lost games in this manner.
I'm only referring to fast time controls--blitz and bullet.
I learn at every opportunity. I have taken out (eeked out is more truthful) a 2000ish player, sweating bullets all the way - not sure that at any moment they were going to run away with the game. I have lost to lesser players because I was over confident and blundered or wasn't focused enough. I've been badgered and ridiculed for believing that I might get a draw out of a game (they weren't even aware that many examples of such are given in Tactics Training - they recanted their comments ultimately). Its like any other competitive battle. Sometimes you're your own worst enemy sometimes they are (sometimes both?!). I'm grateful for every game, win or lose, and will continue to grow (or is the word growl - LOL).
Well said. There's an article about blunders on this site, I think, by a titled player. He gives an example of making a blunder, then being unable to recover his composure -- so he makes an even worse one because he's so distracted by the first one. I'm sure lots of players make blunders when they are too confident about it being 'all over' for their opponent.
I had a game awhile back where I ended up with a king vs king, pawn, and knight. We'd both made some terrible moves, so I decided to play on with hope he would blunder either pawn or knight. When he promoted the pawn I planned to resign. Ended up a stalemate. I should've lost, but if your opponent's as bad as you are, there's always reason to play on!
No, you win a game three times so long as your first and second attempt don't make you look like a fool!
No top player has recalled that saying without knowing that difference, and anyone here who supports it is a 'f*ckin' idiot!'