Forums

Why do many lower rated players drag out lost games

mpaetz

     Beginners often don't know their positions are lost. They've probably lost games when they had positions as good as the ones you have in the games you complain about. If it's blitz or bullet you can surely spare them the couple of minutes. If this bothers you that much don't play long time controls vs low-rated beginners.

pawnstar1957
harrytipper3 wrote:

To clarify what i'm talking about, couple of random losses of mine. One i blundered my queen away, the other is a hopeless endgame. Either way there's no hope of saving the game, so i resign them. 


These are the sort of games i'm talking about people dragging out, rather than continuing a game where you may be able to save with some trick. These are not those sort of games. 

let me offer an alternative viewpoint, harry. you are rated much higher than me. suppose we played a game and you quickly took a dominant position because you have a much greater skill set than me. wouldnt it be in my best interest, assuming i was interested in improving my skills, to continue our game so i could watch the moves of a better player? i think i would be in a position to learn from you. why should i give up that opportunity?

lfPatriotGames

I guess I don't understand what "drag out" means here. As long as the player isn't playing after the clock has run out it's all good. Let's say it's a 10 minute game. As long as he doesn't use more than 10 minutes the game is not drug out. Each player should be able to do the best they can within those 10 minutes. But not a second later. 

To drag something out means to take more time than is necessary. So if one side is losing, how could they "drag out" the game? What is the necessary thing that is taking too long?

It seems to me the only way someone could drag out the game is if they are actually winning. Not losing. In that case they could have a checkmate in 5 for example, but intentionally play delaying moves. 

 

EVANSLT

You resigned before your Queen was taken. Your right 99% or more. I wouldn’t have taken the Queen like that.

Game_of_Pawns
kakouloukiya wrote:

And jetoba is right about this cause, losing a position is subjective about the player and elo player.

That isn't what the thread is about, so how can that be right?

 

Here's the 12 times table: 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144.

 

Now are you going to talk me being right about the 12 times table?

EVANSLT

Could’ve been a slip, a computer error. I’d have given you one chance.

harrytipper3
pawnstar1957 wrote 

let me offer an alternative viewpoint, harry. you are rated much higher than me. suppose we played a game and you quickly took a dominant position because you have a much greater skill set than me. wouldnt it be in my best interest, assuming i was interested in improving my skills, to continue our game so i could watch the moves of a better player? i think i would be in a position to learn from you. why should i give up that opportunity?

 

That's fair, but I would say that, if you were in a hopeless position, there's probably little more to learn from carrying on. Like in a K vs K endgame where the opponent has an unstoppable past pawn, there's nothing else to learn from that.

The part of the game to learn from is, why did you end up in that hopeless position. Regardless i'm alwaya quite happy if anyone learns from me, i've learned from plenty of others happy.png 

EVANSLT

No challenge in taking your Queen because you made a mistake. I’d like to take her on my own merit. I say play it out one more move.

pawnstar1957
harrytipper3 wrote:
pawnstar1957 wrote 

let me offer an alternative viewpoint, harry. you are rated much higher than me. suppose we played a game and you quickly took a dominant position because you have a much greater skill set than me. wouldnt it be in my best interest, assuming i was interested in improving my skills, to continue our game so i could watch the moves of a better player? i think i would be in a position to learn from you. why should i give up that opportunity?

 

That's fair, but I would say that, if you were in a hopeless position, there's probably little more to learn from carrying on. Like in a K vs K endgame where the opponent has an unstoppable past pawn, there's nothing else to learn from that.

The part of the game to learn from is, why did you end up in that hopeless position. Regardless i'm alwaya quite happy if anyone learns from me, i've learned from plenty of others  

i agree. it would depend on the situation. 

EVANSLT

Of course, giving chances has risks, but it’s only a game. It isn’t for money.

kakouloukiya
Game_of_Pawns a écrit :
kakouloukiya wrote:

And jetoba is right about this cause, losing a position is subjective about the player and elo player.

That isn't what the thread is about, so how can that be right?

 

Here's the 12 times table: 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144.

 

Now are you going to talk me being right about the 12 times table?

Why do many lower rated players drag out lost games.

This is the tittle of this thread, i can be considered like a low rated player.
the OP speak about the fact that low elo continue to play the game when they're in losing position and tell example like, being down on queen, a rook or 6 bishop. Losing position like .
We tell you about the subject of resigning and explain why lower rated people don't resign and we add something to the subject of resigning, i have answerer both and telling about you and your manner to answer topic and after you tell jetoba was out of subject.
You literally just only want one answer when the subject is much more complex that only that because resigning is a subject who concern all people.

i doesn't wanted to add this, but you're so arrogant, i don't know, you want have reason at any point. I'm just right about how i perceive you.

when you talk about table, you know it doesn't concern the subject, worst you take this example to try to convince yourself we arent speaking about the right subject when you're wrong, just admit it.

harrytipper3
EVANSLT wrote:

No challenge in taking your Queen because you made a mistake. I’d like to take her on my own merit. I say play it out one more move.

Haha, that's very sporting!

Actually what happened there was, my brain for some reason thought the dark squared bishop was the enemy king. White only needed to play Qe3 instead and the games completely won. 

Complete brain short circuiting on my part!surprise.png

jetoba
Game_of_Pawns wrote:
kakouloukiya wrote:

And jetoba is right about this cause, losing a position is subjective about the player and elo player.

That isn't what the thread is about, so how can that be right?

 

Here's the 12 times table: 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144.

 

Now are you going to talk me being right about the 12 times table?

Almost everything is subjective, even the 12 times table.  In base 8 it is 12, 24, 36, 50, 62, 74, 106, 120.

The initial argument was why somebody would play on when they knew they were hopelessly lost.

Possible reasons:

1) They don't realize it is hopeless

2) They want to learn how good positions should be handled

3) They are hoping for an error (that hope means that it is not hopeless regardless of how unjustified that hope is) Note that a player making unnecessary promotions ends up increasing the hope that the promoting player with get careless and deliver a stalemate

4) Time forfeit hope (I've seen daily games forfeited on time in playable and sometimes better positions)

5) Annoyed at the opponent

6) They never resign

 

I remember when I was about 10 and I saw somebody resign a game at the YMCA.  I offered to take it over with every expectation that I would win because the resigning player had a rook, knight and two pawns and that was mating material even though the opponent had a queen, two rooks, knight, bishop and three pawns.  After another 15 to 25 moves I won that game (and my unrealistic confidence was further reinforced before eventually being brought back to reality when I played decent opponents).  Low rated players may not be able to tell when they are hopelessly lost.

EVANSLT

If I don’t take the Queen, I guess I’m dragging it out. But if you wait to see one more move, your dragging it out 1st. Maybe it’s like poker. You have a bad hand, but instead of checking, you fold.

EVANSLT

It looked like a good game.

Game_of_Pawns
Game_of_Pawns wrote:

If you're a beginner playing another beginner, play on and almost nobody will criticise you for that.

This is getting tiresome, so I'm just going to quote that guy that hates people who are bad at chess and then unfollow.

 

I'm playing two chess games and I'm up around 20 points of material in them both. Both opponents are around 1000 points lower rated than me. I'm resigning them both because I'm bored with the games and they're both unrated.

jetoba
Game_of_Pawns wrote:
Game_of_Pawns wrote:

If you're a beginner playing another beginner, play on and almost nobody will criticise you for that.

This is getting tiresome, so I'm just going to quote that guy that hates people who are bad at chess and then unfollow.

 

I'm playing two chess games and I'm up around 20 points of material in them both. Both opponents are around 1000 points lower rated than me. I'm resigning them both because I'm bored with the games and they're both unrated.

Thus providing another reason for a player to play on when way behind.

Lanatamol

In general I won't resign, I've won by checkmate after blundering my queen.  I've drawn by stalemate when I've lost basically everything because the opponent failed.

I probably would resign if someone is 1000 points above me, I don't see much chance for things to turn my way with such a gap, but why bother playing people 1000 points below you?  Surely that can't be fun and is just scrub stomping.