Resignation Etiquette???

"Never did anwser the question: What joy will you have from this victory?"

I don't know why there wouldn't be joy. Because I won due to a mistake? Well, every won game is won due to a mistake, and yet there is joy from those games. You could argue some games are flashier than others, yet flashiness doesn't determine effectiveness -- sometimes the flashy way ends up losing you games too, even if it's less monotonous and boring.

Royalbishop, you do agree that 2 rooks vs king requires logic, right? Simple logic, but still logic, right?

Point and  point,  points.

Your force in bad moves vs making bad moves that is another subject. Talking about your taking a whuppin on the board and not even a draw is possible and mate 5 moves.

Play on, play on.  Then your opponent blunders for some strange reason, who cares or even time outs that is their problem. You win the game. Break out the champagne or stay quiet about and move on?

Most players as they grow stronger, they know when to resign.

However the statement that there is only one way to win a game when you are up a bishop in an otherwise even game is simply not true.

 Ahhhhh winning ugly is ok!

Winning we i clearly was going to lose is another. I do not care what i am playing and i win those type of games i throw them away. Bring up bad memories. They are equal to a mercy game to me. Everybody that i know (me anyway) would throw the paper that game is on out in the trash where it belongs.

Makes me think that my opponent thinks i was not worth concentrating for that game. Like they could come back and do that again if they really wanted to in a game. Thanks for giving another reason i can add to my list of resigning( this is an empty victory as i hate winning cheap ). I then have to out win another game immediately and convincingly.

How can you mention flash in the same comment? Moonshine in one sentence  and champagne in another.

What joy will you have from this victory(cheap)?" None 

All moves are mistakes, some are just more obvious.

I certainly agree with this post of yours. But all of those ways involve using the material to help you in some way -- unless your position is so good you can mate without its help. Note that when I say "force checkmate," this is mainly referring to secondary goals, such as using the piece to win pawns and make queens, etc -- with the primary goal always present.

"Royalbishop, you do agree that 2 rooks vs king requires logic, right? Simple logic, but still logic, right?"

"I lost a position up a piece" that is not a lost position. So no reason to resign at all. Know what this tells me, your guilty of not resigning when you should. Why else mention it.

Resigning is for games when mate is coming in like 5-7 or less. "thought I had "won the game already", no sign of mate mentioned. Which means that you did not consider your opponents options. Never did you mention a possible draw your opponent could get. 2 conditions have to be met to consider resign. Mate is coming in like 5-7 moves or less and no way to avoid mate with a draw game.

And your opponent here did not enjoy the win fully. That much is clear. Yeah he would take the points but sure he does want to ever see that game again. Nnnnnnnn  not an example for a case of resigning.

Oh hold on a minute..... I just remember my friend was a member of the NRU - Non Resigners Union and he paid his dues 5 years in advance. After he tried that running with the King tactic against 2 Rooks and King and i mated him in the corner of my choosing he quit the NRU immediately.

Now he is looking for a refund and he wants not checks ALL CASH right in his hand not by mail ( no delivery to the wrong house excuse). He will be joining the NDU Non Draw Union. Those members are more liked he told me. Told him he could find you here .

Elubas, your original statement was false--now you re trying to modify it out of existence but you are still wrong.

There are many ways to win a game other than what you describe.

But at least for the moment you stopped using strawman arguments!

[and hopefully you are done assigning bad motives]

Take board

Place board over head of opponent.

smash board

LMAO

Hey E i got a surprie for you my good friend.

Hey Elubas come on out buddy. I want you to check this out. Good. Just great. Now sit down and have some water. Hate water ok. Then take this delicious tasting Orange Crush. Ahhhh go ahead drink more. Hey take 2 of these pills trust me..... trust me.

Now that was not why i brought you over here.  Hehehehe

If I'm still wrong, I'd like to know how, but it seems to me you are creating new arguments on trivial points. We all make grammatical mistakes, we all make spelling errors, sometimes we don't word things precisely, but if you know what the person meant, they generally aren't important. I think you know what my message was, that your extra piece won't win the game in itself unless you follow up with good play, but instead you criticize a particular wording that had nothing at all to do with the point. I'm not sure if the statement was wrong -- depends on semantics really, e.g., whether one looks at the word "way" in a narrow or broad sense, but if my statement was wrong that's perfectly fine. I don't think it's particularly relevant either way, though.

Royalbishop, I do respect your opinion, but from that quote where I asked you about the logic of two rooks vs king, and you go on talking about something else, makes it difficult to argue with you.

Funny, I've never noticed Looby having difficulty arguing with anyone. 

Again, semantics.

Nope, sarcastics. 

Elubas if the point you were trying to make was that an extra piece won't win a game in itself unless you follow up with good play--why not say that rather than a statement which was obviously untrue?

Well, I thought the statement was true, and preferred to word it that way as it emphasizes making use of the piece. To just say "follow up with good play" is something we all hear and is less specific than I wanted. If the falseness of the statement caused a lot of disturbances for you, I apologize.

We may disagree on a lot of things, but it's almost as if you want to create even more arguments. I'm not sure why, but in any case, I'm not really interested in the argument of the precise correctness of my statement -- I'll give the victory to you on that one if you want it.

Since I have myself won games several different ways it had to be untrue and I do not think I am the only person to have won games more than one way.

You do not understand that there are many ways to win a chess game?