Why people refuse to resign? - Chess Forums - Page 3

PerpetualPatzer123

Oct 19, 2021

0

#41

rollingronnie wrote:

Dear friends,

I play 10 min games with a ELO score of around 1400-1500.

I wish to discuss why there are so many people on chess.com who simply refuse to resign a losing game. I think it's a lack of respect and a waste of time to not resign when you don't have a decent chance of winning anymore. Hoping for a couple of blunders, running out of time, or a blunderdraw. It annoys the hell out of me. I block everyone who does that, but they just keep on coming. I also notice some nationalities doing this a lot more than others. I wish there was a pool with opponents that like to play respectfully.

Please also join the discussion if you are one of those douche bags Help me understand why you are doing this.

If you are winning that much, convert the position. It’s good practise for you and your opponent. There’s no reason to complain if the position is as lost for them as you describe, as it should be an easy win.

x-0460907528

Oct 19, 2021

0

#42

blitz2009 wrote:

Vincidroid wrote:

Because you might blunder your win to a stalemate or loss, so they play to the end

That's why

I agree with OP. Playing a losing game at 1400 or higher is a complete and utter waste of time. I once played against a person that was down a queen a knight and a rook and STILL played. Hoping for a stalemate is just wasting your own time. The only way that can happen is if a mouse slip happens, but that is like 1/1000.

and why would you care if someone else chooses to waste their own time?

bread4duck

Oct 20, 2021

0

#43

blitz2009 wrote:

neos01 wrote:

Stalling is bad etiquette. But playing in a lost position isn't.

Try to look at it in a different perspective.

If you have a winning position and then you lose, then you simply lack the ability to convert your advantage properly. Even if you are ahead, you cant allow any counter play from your opponent. Try not to make any excuse when you lose, a lost is a lost. Identify why you lose, is it time trouble, carelessness, or something else and then work on it.

Dont forget that most GM earn his rating not just because they win a lot, but also because their ability to convert a lost position into a draw (or even a win).

Your only 1663 rapid you wouldn't understand. Nobody is saying it is illegal to play on, it's just a waste of time. Don't bring GM's into this. If you have ever seen any GM's play they don't play till the checkmate (99% of them). Because it would simply be a waste of time.

OP is only 1400 rapid, at your rating yes it would be a waste of time because you don't get to >2000 if you can't convert a winning position every time but that isn't the case at OP's rating (especially in 10 minute games where there's time pressure).

654Psyfox

Apr 4, 2023

0

#44

Way 👏 to 👏 go 👏 bringing 👏 back 👏 dead 👏 forums 👏

trimalo

Apr 4, 2023

0

#45

Because you can report someone quitting. Playing until the end is a mindset. And a mistake or stalemate is always possible isn't it?

rollingronnie

Apr 5, 2023

0

#46

Yeah, i don't understand why people want to 'win' or stalemate only in the off chance of a giant blunder. It means you didn't really win, but the other just ruined it. I play chess because it's a beautiful game, and i like to play on the best of my level. I don't enjoy wins where someone just gives away their queen for example, because that is not what chess is about for me. It's even more annoying when they refuse to give up after that, hoping for the off chance of a stalemate or time running out. The game is already played, how do they still enjoy it?

timben

Apr 5, 2023

0

#47

If you win by checkmate you get more elo than resign

timben

Apr 5, 2023

0

#48

Also to praxtixe endgames

timben

Apr 5, 2023

0

#49

What i sont understand is why people getbso mad because of it you press play on a 10 minute chess game you automatically accwpt the fact that it might come down to 20 minutes of play time. Its like people who plays sheppard mate but then resign when it fails because they dont want to play more. Its not fair to people who actually want to play chess.

timben

Apr 5, 2023

0

#50

The other day i played a winning game where i was up 20 points of material and i asked the guy why he didnt resign. He said he just wanted to play chess because its fun. And know i think i agree with him

JaidenanimationsCENTRAL

Apr 5, 2023

0

#51

They wait for you to blunder.

t15k

Apr 5, 2023

0

#52

JaidenanimationsCENTRAL wrote:

They wait for you to blunder.

Under 1000, even many games under 1500 elo, they're decided by who blunders

t15k

Apr 5, 2023

0

#53

Even 2000s can blunder although it's relatively rare. You really aren't good in chess until at least 2000 elo, and OK until at least 1500 elo

timben

Apr 5, 2023

0

#54

How would you know that, sitting at under 1000 elo?

JaidenanimationsCENTRAL

Apr 5, 2023

0

#55

1500 is considered advanced

JaidenanimationsCENTRAL

Apr 5, 2023

0

#56

Not ok

t15k

Apr 5, 2023

0

#57

timben wrote:

How would you know that, sitting at under 1000 elo?

From other chess players.

Other influencers have shown chess games of about these ratings and found many blunders, missed tactics etc.

Nelson Lopez (NM), "6 Tips To Get Past 1000 - The most common chess mistakes - How to get better at chess for beginners": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5YNDGSYLOg

Out of 100 players, 41 made blunders, which is a huge number.

t15k

Apr 5, 2023

0

#58

It's not just my opinion, other much stronger chess players have analysed 1000 elo games and found (in hindsight) very easy blunders and missed tactics, often. But in a game it's much harder.

So actually <1000 elo we're pretty crap at chess, <1500 still kinda bad but at least we start knowing a bit of what we're doing

timben

Apr 5, 2023

0

#59

Well thats part of hetting better at chess, blundering and learning from that

timben

Apr 5, 2023

0

#60

But where did the fact that at 1500 your ok and not good until 2000, like the words