look I spelled 'writing' wrongly....a sure sign of pollution...
Why resign a game?
Sort:
It's a compliment for someone to resign when the position is totally lost. I am always unhappy when a winning position is lost due to time constraints, it's OK though, nothing like being consoled with a box of donuts
Aug 19, 2009
0
#104
This forum is still going? What are the rules regarding resignation? Do I have to resign according to the rules? Did I hear a faint no? EUREKA! I think I solved the equation:
r = rules
q = quit
m = material
a = opponent 1
b = opponent 2
If a*m is less than b*m or b*m is less than a*m then r must equal q. True/False
Let's see
If an opponent has less material than his/her opponent the rules state you must quit. FALSE
Suggo wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
I think you're going to need to show your work on that one -- it doesn't add up.
[Edit: Nevermind -- I see that you've twisted the comparison between not resigning and resigning into a comparison between not-resigning and playing fast and not-resigning and playing slow. That's great, but it's not relevant.
The original point was that there are two types of non-resigners. Those who don't know that they are in a lost position and those who do. I feel that the first is excusable, but that the second is not. The problem is that it's near impossible to tell which you are dealing with which is why the indicators of taking the maximum time as soon as the game is clearly lost and resigning just before mate were cited as one way to tell that you are likely facing a member of the latter group.
At no point was I complaining specifically about slow players who use their allotted time as per the agreement made at the beginning of the game -- frankly, I am one.]
Again the reason doen't matter, the time you use up for the game is the same.
I really dont see how you figure this at all. If my opponent could respectfully resign at move 40 but drags the game out an additional 20 moves , I will spend more time on this game even if I only take a minute or so per move for the last 20 moves. What is really " rubbing salt into the wound " is when the opponent is high rated ( so I know he knows he is lost ! ) AND the guy had been making several moves per day every day until move 40 suddenly starts taking the maximun time per move allowed when his position is hopeless. Its incredible to me that you think I wont spend any additional time on a game if there is an additional 20 moves played ! Please explain how you figure this ?
Chess_Lobster wrote:
I see your still dealing with your bizarre persecution by proxy disorder Suggo. I also see your attempt to set the record for the use of the phrase "impose your ideals" is still ongoing, kudos!
My advice to the rest of you is to simply let Suggo go on this one, or resign if you will. I have attempted to do battle with this mental mammoth before without success. I am still in awe at the way he shrugs off logic and common sense.
Let me know when you come up with some logic and common sense Lobster, I'd like to be able to shrug it off as it would be a new experience for both of us. It will be the first time I have shrugged off common sense and logic, and it will be the first time you have come up with either!
Reb wrote:
Suggo wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
I think you're going to need to show your work on that one -- it doesn't add up.
[Edit: Nevermind -- I see that you've twisted the comparison between not resigning and resigning into a comparison between not-resigning and playing fast and not-resigning and playing slow. That's great, but it's not relevant.
The original point was that there are two types of non-resigners. Those who don't know that they are in a lost position and those who do. I feel that the first is excusable, but that the second is not. The problem is that it's near impossible to tell which you are dealing with which is why the indicators of taking the maximum time as soon as the game is clearly lost and resigning just before mate were cited as one way to tell that you are likely facing a member of the latter group.
At no point was I complaining specifically about slow players who use their allotted time as per the agreement made at the beginning of the game -- frankly, I am one.]
Again the reason doen't matter, the time you use up for the game is the same.
I really dont see how you figure this at all. If my opponent could respectfully resign at move 40 but drags the game out an additional 20 moves , I will spend more time on this game even if I only take a minute or so per move for the last 20 moves. What is really " rubbing salt into the wound " is when the opponent is high rated ( so I know he knows he is lost ! ) AND the guy had been making several moves per day every day until move 40 suddenly starts taking the maximun time per move allowed when his position is hopeless. Its incredible to me that you think I wont spend any additional time on a game if there is an additional 20 moves played ! Please explain how you figure this ?
He was talking about two types of non resigners, and specifically mentioning those who play extra slow out of spite once they realise they are lost. What I was saying is that if you have to play the game out it takes you no more time in playing if he was to move every 2 mins or every 7 days. This is all I was referring to in the above post!
Aug 20, 2009
0
#108
MackSonic wrote:
Do people really play slow out of spite? I know it isn't heaps but I've played 442 games here and I dont think it has happened yet.
It would be a pretty negative thing to do but it is the rules, if they think it helps them in anyway so be it.
Maybe 3 people let the timer run out but for all I know they had something really urgent happen in RL. That happened to me once.
I am not going to speculate on the motives but I have personnally experienced the phenomena of my opponent playing at vastly different speeds depending on the position. As this opponent appears to use the same approach against other opponents, it follows that there is a method behind. Of course, it is within the rules but would you expect to see the same behavior when playing OTB? In all my years I have never experienced during club play that an opponent continued to play in a position with a rook against a queen plus bishop (or with a naked king against a rook and queen in another game) just because he has still time on his clock. It would be considered extremely rude and cause quite a ruckus. Of course, in Online Chess you can do something else while waiting for a response but it stinks to have to take vacation time because your opponent continues a game that has been over for 10 plus moves.
Dietmar wrote:
MackSonic wrote:
Do people really play slow out of spite? I know it isn't heaps but I've played 442 games here and I dont think it has happened yet.
It would be a pretty negative thing to do but it is the rules, if they think it helps them in anyway so be it.
Maybe 3 people let the timer run out but for all I know they had something really urgent happen in RL. That happened to me once.
I am not going to speculate on the motives but I have personnally experienced the phenomena of my opponent playing at vastly different speeds depending on the position. As this opponent appears to use the same approach against other opponents, it follows that there is a method behind. Of course, it is within the rules but would you expect to see the same behavior when playing OTB? In all my years I have never experienced during club play that an opponent continued to play in a position with a rook against a queen plus bishop (or with a naked king against a rook and queen in another game) just because he has still time on his clock. It would be considered extremely rude and cause quite a ruckus. Of course, in Online Chess you can do something else while waiting for a response but it stinks to have to take vacation time because your opponent continues a game that has been over for 10 plus moves.
A game that is over can't be continued!
If you're too stupid to understand his point, don't post!
If you can understand his post, why post something pedantic and pointless!
Suggo never tires in his defense of rude/unsporting behavior ! I think this tells us a lot about suggo. Are you a pugilist suggo ? If so, do you think pugilists should fight till the death like gladiators of old ? In chess this is basically what you support.
marvellosity wrote:
If you're too stupid to understand his point, don't post!
If you can understand his post, why post something pedantic and pointless!
LOL, generally people who feel threatened get angry like this!
I understand his post fine, but I am wondering if either of you understand that a game is not over if it is still being played! Pedantic or not, it's a fact! 
Reb wrote:
Suggo never tires in his defense of rude/unsporting behavior ! I think this tells us a lot about suggo. Are you a pugilist suggo ? If so, do you think pugilists should fight till the death like gladiators of old ? In chess this is basically what you support.
Rude/unsporting behaviour...to play out a game is rude/unsporting behaviour? To follow all the rules and complete a game because you would like to complete it for any myriad of reasons is rude/unsporting behaviour? Sorry mate, you might consider it rude/unsporting behaviour, I think it is all part of the game and what you sign up for when you consent to play. Rude/unsporting behaviour for me is pressuring and chiding others in an attempt to conform to what you consider correct...so in fact I do believe it is you that defends rude/unsporting behaviour!
I support people being allowed to make their own decisions as far as when and or if they are going to resign. I am not a supporter of the never resign crowd, I am not a supporter of the resign crowd. I really don't care which way anyone wants to play it. Check out post #13, that's where I stand with this!
AnthonyCG wrote:
Not resigning when you're clearly lost is done out of fear of losing just as cheating. Some people play only for the win. That's just how it is...
Oh Anthony, once again you think you know why everyone behaves in this way! I know of a guy that once played out a game when he knew he had lost because he was curious to see how he could be checkmated with the pieces his opponent had left.....hmm, that pretty much debunks your it is only 'done out of fear of losing' claim.
pls i need guide on this one...joined a couple of days ago...wrking hard to improve my ratings. just won a game by time out and my ratings still remain 1200.
doesn't time-out wins count?
Suggo wrote:
Reb wrote:
Suggo never tires in his defense of rude/unsporting behavior ! I think this tells us a lot about suggo. Are you a pugilist suggo ? If so, do you think pugilists should fight till the death like gladiators of old ? In chess this is basically what you support.
Rude/unsporting behaviour...to play out a game is rude/unsporting behaviour? To follow all the rules and complete a game because you would like to complete it for any myriad of reasons is rude/unsporting behaviour? Sorry mate, you might consider it rude/unsporting behaviour, I think it is all part of the game and what you sign up for when you consent to play. Rude/unsporting behaviour for me is pressuring and chiding others in an attempt to conform to what you consider correct...so in fact I do believe it is you that defends rude/unsporting behaviour!
I support people being allowed to make their own decisions as far as when and or if they are going to resign. I am not a supporter of the never resign crowd, I am not a supporter of the resign crowd. I really don't care which way anyone wants to play it. Check out post #13, that's where I stand with this!
I see you failed to answer my questions suggo, which I figured you would do. If a soccer game has one side winning 10 -0 with 1 min left in the game, the game is not technically "over" until that last minute expires and many sports are like this. However, I think anyone , but perhaps you suggo, would agree the game is "over" . Maybe you just dont get it ? Chess allows its practitioners to save some face in such a humiliating situation and "resign" rather than continue in the face of hopeless odds. You know, like having only a K against K+Q ? Please answer my questions suggo when addressing my posts or dont address my posts at all.
Reb wrote:
Suggo wrote:
Reb wrote:
Suggo never tires in his defense of rude/unsporting behavior ! I think this tells us a lot about suggo. Are you a pugilist suggo ? If so, do you think pugilists should fight till the death like gladiators of old ? In chess this is basically what you support.
Rude/unsporting behaviour...to play out a game is rude/unsporting behaviour? To follow all the rules and complete a game because you would like to complete it for any myriad of reasons is rude/unsporting behaviour? Sorry mate, you might consider it rude/unsporting behaviour, I think it is all part of the game and what you sign up for when you consent to play. Rude/unsporting behaviour for me is pressuring and chiding others in an attempt to conform to what you consider correct...so in fact I do believe it is you that defends rude/unsporting behaviour!
I support people being allowed to make their own decisions as far as when and or if they are going to resign. I am not a supporter of the never resign crowd, I am not a supporter of the resign crowd. I really don't care which way anyone wants to play it. Check out post #13, that's where I stand with this!
I see you failed to answer my questions suggo, which I figured you would do. If a soccer game has one side winning 10 -0 with 1 min left in the game, the game is not technically "over" until that last minute expires and many sports are like this. However, I think anyone , but perhaps you suggo, would agree the game is "over" . Maybe you just dont get it ? Chess allows its practitioners to save some face in such a humiliating situation and "resign" rather than continue in the face of hopeless odds. You know, like having only a K against K+Q ? Please answer my questions suggo when addressing my posts or dont address my posts at all.
So you have never played a team sport Reb....because if you had you would know that the example you give is out and out wrong! For the spectators it may be over, for the players there is still one min to play! I have played in many a losing side, I have played in many a winning side as well, and I can tell you that not once did I consider a game over till the final whistle, it may have been lost, but it certainly wasn't over!
Suggo, you are wasting bandwith, so stop posting.
Suggo wrote:
Reb wrote:
Suggo wrote:
Reb wrote:
Suggo never tires in his defense of rude/unsporting behavior ! I think this tells us a lot about suggo. Are you a pugilist suggo ? If so, do you think pugilists should fight till the death like gladiators of old ? In chess this is basically what you support.
Rude/unsporting behaviour...to play out a game is rude/unsporting behaviour? To follow all the rules and complete a game because you would like to complete it for any myriad of reasons is rude/unsporting behaviour? Sorry mate, you might consider it rude/unsporting behaviour, I think it is all part of the game and what you sign up for when you consent to play. Rude/unsporting behaviour for me is pressuring and chiding others in an attempt to conform to what you consider correct...so in fact I do believe it is you that defends rude/unsporting behaviour!
I support people being allowed to make their own decisions as far as when and or if they are going to resign. I am not a supporter of the never resign crowd, I am not a supporter of the resign crowd. I really don't care which way anyone wants to play it. Check out post #13, that's where I stand with this!
I see you failed to answer my questions suggo, which I figured you would do. If a soccer game has one side winning 10 -0 with 1 min left in the game, the game is not technically "over" until that last minute expires and many sports are like this. However, I think anyone , but perhaps you suggo, would agree the game is "over" . Maybe you just dont get it ? Chess allows its practitioners to save some face in such a humiliating situation and "resign" rather than continue in the face of hopeless odds. You know, like having only a K against K+Q ? Please answer my questions suggo when addressing my posts or dont address my posts at all.
So you have never played a team sport Reb....because if you had you would know that the example you give is out and out wrong! For the spectators it may be over, for the players there is still one min to play! I have played in many a losing side, I have played in many a winning side as well, and I can tell you that not once did I consider a game over till the final whistle, it may have been lost, but it certainly wasn't over!
I played team sports in school but found I didnt like them much because of the added pressure of being the "goat" or the "hero" of the game, so I went more for individual sports....
Why wont you answer my questions suggo ?
Because the questions you ask have no relevance to my point Reb. What my opinion of a certain situation on the chess board is just, and only, that, my opinion. To resign or not is entirely up to me...and that is that case for everyone else. I want to make sure people out there that read these threads that the decision is theirs and they should not be pressured into thinking any other way by you or anyone else. Simple really!
I think we need to keep the environment unpolluted here. I'm already short of breath down here, I don't think I even know what I'm righting...