Anyone else feel cheated by those who are quick to resign?

Resigning after 10 moves earns you time.  Some people aren't immortal so their time is important to them!

Yeah Qe2 best. And if the bishop attacks from the other diagonal I'll again protect my bishop. By protect I mean avoid a forced exchange.

As long as they're not stalling on individual moves I don't care what they do with their time. They can resign early or play until checkmate.

So for example if I'm up 2 queens and they don't even have the potential to make a single threat, then the only reason to keep playing is stalemate or flagging... so their moves should never take longer than a few seconds each... as long as that's the case they're not stalling and I don't care.

If I win a piece on move 5 (and they have zero compensation) and they resign, then I think that's very reasonable because 9 times out of 10 they're going to lose that game.

Mostly what these topics (there are other related topics) boil down to is people don't like it when their opponent seems to not be taking the game seriously, because that means their opponent is being disrespectful.

I think after you gain some experience (either in chess, in life, or both) you realize that just because they didn't behave in the way you would have in that particular situation, it doesn't mean they're not taking the game seriously, so you don't have to feel disrespected.

here’s where it pays to understand “separation of tasks” in Adlerian psychology.

@llama that first post is excellent, the second not so much. There's a huge difference between experiencing an anti climax by a premature ending and feeling disrespected.

just when you were going in for the kill, he resigns and you are left looking stupid standing there hovering a sword over your head.

yep, it goes back a long ways guys

What are you talking about? Your OP game ends on move 10.

If there were a pretty combination and they resign half way though I might believe you... but people tell themselves all sorts of stories that mask what's actually happening psychologically.

Although maybe it's a difference is skill level too.

In the middle of a tense game if my opponent blunders a whole knight (for no compensation) then I feel an anti climax after they make the bad move... but not if they resign after blundering lol.

@llama do you know what anti climax means? I'm saying when I sit down to play chess and engage in a battle of wills, if a game ends so early like that it can be an anti climax. You don't have to believe me or mask any of your emotions, you don't even have to empathise with the situation. This is merely a forum where one can engage in general chess discussions and games ending during the opening, are an anti climax imo.

I'm glad you can see more than just your own perspective /s

But I guess that's what these topics are all about... as I already said in #45.

Well any topic has more than one perspective, that's the nature of debate. If every chess game ended whenever there was a blunder in the opening, it wouldn't be as fun jmo.

Anyone who doesn't resign on move 27 is just wrong.  Earlier or later it's just disrespectful.

That’s why it’s an “if”. It’s nice to have fun while playing chess, but it’s possible to make use of time wisely and have fun playing chess.

It is, I just think resigning a game is bad enough, especially in the opening.

If I was your opponent and I blundered a piece without any compensation, I will resign too. And stop playing chess for the rest of the day.

But I'm only a 1700 rated player. It's flattering that someone feels I am guaranteed a victory in this position, but I can assure you I am not.

this whole situation can only be sorted by Crockett and Stubbs.

1700 is strong enough to convert a piece advantage to victory. Maybe if you're a 1300.

Believe me, I've lost plenty of times when I've been 3 points up. I've won plenty of times when I've been 3 points down.