likesforests wrote:
At the World Open, there was alot of pressure during the games and sometimes one or both of us were upset. But after the dust settled we were friendly with one another, chatted, and watched how each other did in the standings. The only exceptions were a couple players who attempted to win using underhanded means.
Ooooh, you can't just say that and NOT identify the means!
It seems that you all look for a justification for NEVER resigning. Such a justification cannot be found in some funny incidents as above (although the guys who ask his opponent to resign deserve to lose, I completely agree!).
We all know when it's time to resign: namely, if we realize, that we will most probably lose.
Resigning means also showing respect to the opponent and his performance.
After all, if we were just lucky to turn around the wheels and win a game from a lost position, would not make us proud or happy, because we did not DESERVE THE LUCK, right?
(Still I suspect that some people around don't agree with me at this point, but those are just gamblers, not chess players, in my opinion...)
Everybody has a different opinion about the exact moment to resign, and this depends on our rating, I agree, too ...
For me (FIDE elo 2265), this moment has come, when my opponent (no matter how much rating he has!!!) is a piece up (or two pawns up), and I have no counterplay for it.
Exceptions from this rule are:
1) A horrible timetrouble (a minute or so on his clock left) of my opponent, then I usually offer a draw. (If he does not accept and then perhaps loses by time, I don't feel pride...).
2) We are in a drawish endgame (for instance, with opposite coloured bishops, an advantage of two pawns is often not enough to win!).
A few times I violated my own rule, I confess. Namely when we BOTH were in horrible timetrouble, and I just could not make up my mind to resign...