I think it has something to do with making an offer that can't be refused.
A Question of Honor
Sort:
Mar 20, 2013
0
#23
losingmove wrote:
What is a 'forced' win?
Better ask, what is a search engine? "Forced mate" = a "forced win"
Forced: A move or set of moves that are required (forced) to avoid a lesser game result.
Forced mate: A sequence of moves that lead to a checkmate no matter what the opponent responds.
Forced move: A move for which there is only one reply (or if more than one reply, all but one are undesirable).
http://www.chess-poster.com/english/glossary/chess_glossary.htm#F
Better ask, what is a search engine? "Forced mate" = a "forced win"
You could have left it at that, Sacha.
I prefer the hands on touch that only hired goons provide
Are you offering me a job?
Mar 20, 2013
0
#27
Al you're a goon for hire? Who knew?
Yeah you're right I should've quit while I was behind...
My resume is on it's way....
Hey AlC, remember that game Nimz had against "Dracula" ? He resigned immediately before she got banned! how embarrassing!
So what you're saying is...google is my friend?
Mar 20, 2013
0
#31
MathBandit wrote:
Resign at the point when you could take your opponent's position, Kasparov could take yours, and you would feel comfortable that you would win.
Excellent point! And if you could beat Carlsen after he takes your postion, you probably should have resigned a couple of moves ago. 
HurricaneMichael1 wrote:
I agree. When I resign I do it so my opponent does not have the please of killing my King.
lol! harsh! GM's do the same though. Give up the castle, not the king.
I'm English so I never wave a white flag unless it has the cross of Saint George on it. ;)
On the other hand, I have had games where I was losing badly, but out of the blue I got a win after my opponent was banned for cheating. I was glad I didn't resign in those games, to keep MY honor.
So, you never know 
BTW, I never reported anyone, it was just a gift from the Chess.com gods!
ChessForceRecon wrote:
Around Chess.com there seems to be some question about whether it is better to resign when you know you are going to lose, or keep on playing. Personally, I prefer to play to the bitter, bloody end, and try not to resign. However, some people would call this dishonorable and unfair to the other player. My thoughts are that it really isn't dishonorable or unfair to the other player because in the end I'm just as dead, and he also has the satisfaction of a Checkmate (something I find far more satisfying then a resignation).
This is just my humble opinion. It would be interesting to see every one else's thoughts on the subject.
There are plenty of reasons to resign or not to resign, covered by the previous posts.
But the whole 'I like better checkmating than my opponent resigning' is just wrong. When you are one queen up there is nothing beautiful in the checkmate that will occur, and you shouldn't feel some sadistic satisfaction in it.
Just resign when the gig is up. It's a waste of everyone's time to keep playing. Masters usually resign right? It's a sign of dignity and maturity to keep it real.
Just going through the motions because of a bruised ego or a head trip is absurd. But I find, commonly, that chess trolls just run away when they've lost like the babies that they are.
The sooner you resign, the sooner everyone gets on with life and you stand a chance to recoup your losses.
The exception to that rule is if there are enough dynamics left that your opponent really might make a serious blunder, which often happens. You can usually tell when *that* notion is a good gambit.
A question of honor? That reminds me of a limerick:
He offered his honor.
She honored his offer.
So all night long it was honor and offer.
Mar 20, 2013
0
#38
Sunofthemorninglight wrote:
Hey AlC, remember that game Nimz had against "Dracula" ? He resigned immediately before she got banned! how embarrassing!
Funny you should bring that up...my other game vs Drac is now my "highest-rated" win - which is a forfeit win of course since her PC was mopping me up at the time - so maybe everyone should play on until they're mated on the rationale that their opponent might get kicked out for cheating first
Probably not, unless they have enuff common sense to at least be able to separate potential cheats from players who are just better than they are or who just outplayed them in a far from perfect game
reflectivist wrote:
A question of honor? That reminds me of a limerick:
He offered his honor.
She honored his offer.
So all night long it was honor and offer.
Nice.
Mar 20, 2013
0
#40
if you believe there is no way to swindle your opponent and you are playing on just to spite your opponent just resign otherwise keep playing. one of my recent swindles involved playing on until i noticed he was getting so impatient that he was playing reflexively i left him hanging on a check so long that once i gave check he blocked it immediately in the process hanging his queen of course he was comepletely ticked off but sometimes there is more to the game then whats on the board. incase anyone wants to see the game http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=477214567
What is a 'forced' win?