Stupid idiots who don't know when to resign?

Thanks for the reference, Pulpofeira !

Anytime!

a good example of holding out too long

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=118840976

Use your knowledgeand take... or you could ask for a draw and move on.  ?

Speaking of holding out too long:

He hasn't made a move in 3 days, he just got another 3 days with auto-timeout protection, and  he's holding up a tournament. I've complained to the TD, but no action yet. Resign already, dude. 

I see things like that a lot.

As long as he's following the rules, there is nothing to complain about.

Although he can't win, he could conceivably get a draw by stalemate.

Seriously, you don't know HOW many games I have played in which the person in the losing position, whether that be me or my opponent, doesn't resign despite the fact that both of us are completely aware that mate is inevitable.

Not just idiots...stupid idiots. Lol might as well say Carlsen is a smart genius.

Beautiful :')

I played a kid rated 150 points higher than me in an OTB tournament today.  He was very annoying during the game, making noises such as clicking his pen incessantly -- I had to ask him to stop twice.  He even laid his head down to sleep when it was his move, very disrespectful.

He play Nf5 and I played ...Bxf5 and he responded exf5 and I could tell by the look he gave me that he thought he was just going to steamroll me with a kingside attack.  Problem was his exf5 allowed me to create a huge pawn center, ...e5, ...d5 and ...c5, and then I got to push ...e4.  In short the classic recipe for countering an attack on the flank -- counter attack in the center.

There's a point to all of this.  After very careful defending on my part he played some clever moves and thought he was going to come out a pawn to the good.  However he missed a simple tactic and I actually came out a piece to the good: R, N and pawns vs. R and pawn, and I had two connected passers in the center.

I got rooks off, mopped up some pawns of his, then had my knight supporting my connected passers which had gotten to the sixth and seventh ranks.  I brought my king up to support my passer on the seventh such that it was going to promote on the next move, and he was going to continue to play.

That's when I grabbed a rook, and I guess to avoid the embarrassment, the little punk finally resigned.  It's not like I'm a complete novice or anything, I'm USCF and FIDE rated 1700.  I really hate playing in OTB tournaments with kids anymore.  It was my first tournament in a couple of years, next time I'll try to remember to bring earplugs.

Game here: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/countering-a-flank-attack-with-a-central-attack

If it was just me vs him, I wouldn't care. But all the games in our group are over except this one. I will advance and he won't, no matter what happens here. He doesn't have to resign,  he doesn't even have to accept a draw offer. Is he counting on me to resign just to get rid of him, so he can get free rating points? If that's legal, the system is broken. 

Don't resign under any circumstances. That would just encourage him to be a jerk in the future.

Though I posted earlier that it is my opponent's right not to resign, and it's my responsibility to defeat him, the situation is completely different when you're in an online tournament of several rounds. If your refusal to resign is holding up the tournament, and if you are hopelessly beaten, then your refusal is petulant stupidity. You have a responsibility, not only to your own ego, but to all the other participants in the tournament.

"If your refusal to resign is holding up the tournament, and if you are hopelessly beaten, then your refusal is petulant stupidity. You have a responsibility, not only to your own ego, but to all the other participants in the tournament."

Agreed. But it's not necessarily he fault - maybe he has some emergency to deal with or whatever. The point is that since this game makes no difference to the outcome, the TD should just let me go on to the next round.  Unless maybe it affects the seeding... 

It is possible that a rule that would put a time limit on the (this would have to be a professional opinion, not mine) player down in position and or pieces would have to move in so that the game would finish within a few minutes.  If I remember correctly, games had no time limits initially, than the 2 hrs per person was instituted based on experience which everyone seemed to be happy for.  I know in table tennis that when a match goes to expedite (two defensive players going at it forever usually) the player serving has either 5 or 7 contacts with the ball maximum or they forfeit the point (it still seems forever).  You get my point, I hope.  As it turns out, most table tennis tournaments become a contest in physical fitness as much as they are in ball control/skill.  PS - I did watch a live match where someone was down 2-0 in games and 2-19 in the third and came back to win the game and the match.

jfoxton,

I have seen table tennis games where there have been 20+ contacts by both players and neither has been forced to forfeit the point. The problem with forcing people to resign in chess when they are down in material is that in chess, material advantage can be illusive. One could have a back-rank mating attack. There is no reason a chess player should be forced to forfeit a game regardless of how much material they are down unless it is on time only.

You never know who's on the other end of the screen like a 10 year old kid who's been told to fight to the finish by his coach? if you have the win put your opponent away and checkmate him.

And maybe the coach keeps silent about such matters because the parents have this view, and they pay the coach.

That's how it's done.