Can we get an option to play No Resign Games?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
As an option for type of live game, where both sides are agreeing to the condition before play, I don't see why it wouldn't be instructive to new players and perfectly playable with time controls. I have no idea why people are against the idea (they don't have to play games with those options, just as they don't have to play time controls they don't choose). It is basically a way for people to agree in a friendly way before the game what to expect when they don't know other players (as beginners will likely not know...).
May 8, 2014
0
#24
There are plenty of players on chess.com who seem to think the resign button isn't there anyway. Just add each of them you meet as friends and you'll soon have a bunch of opponents to play who will never resign!
resigning is part of the game and if you do not like it LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 8, 2014
0
#26
Interesting conversation. I especially like Guv'nor Chess_gg's remarks, because they remind me of a Faulkner novella...
Some positions are so obviously one-sided for some players that there is no reason to play on because both players have the technique to win easily and without error. There is nothing they can learn and so one player simply resigns to save time.
If you don't see the win or you think there's something to gain from playing on then you should keep playing. But you really can't force someone to play when they don't want to.
May 8, 2014
0
#28
well when chess is the topic you can never be sure about what is meant to be a compliment and what is only meant to look like one, but in this case I think you could quite safely take it for that yeah...
I am only sorry I don't have Faulkner's text here with me. This is the standard quotation, anyway:
'Nothing by which all human passion and hope and folly can be mirrored and then proved, ever was just a game,' his uncle said. 'Move.'
bobslayer wrote:
I really wish I could play games where you can't resign just because you don't think your going to win.
I just started playing online and I hate people resigning before the game is finnished, especially when you spend 8 minutes building your attack only to have the game stopped once the person thinks it isn't in their favour.
Chess isn't about winning it's about learning new strategies to better your game.
Winning is a culmination of a lot of losing.
The end game is where you learn the most, especially when your on the back foot.
Can we please have an option to have games that can't be resigned unless both players agree?
"Chess isn't about winning" ???? All competitive games are about winning.
Even assuming non-resignable games are also non-disconnectable by some magic (and we might as well throw in no-timeouting, the pack comes at a discount at your local witchcraft shop), what, exactly, would be the point of all that ?
May 9, 2014
0
#31
It is....
What with you (chess_gg) speaking of this 'junior cousin' of yours and about the games you play regularly at some joint...
...fact is the narrator of the above novella happens to be the young nephew of this lawyer (county attorney, in fact), Gavin Stevens, who is the protagonist or rather the detective in this (and other) Faulkner stories...
In this particular story, the Uncle reveals his method of understanding the intricancies of human passion through chess (as per the quote above).
In fact, they play chess games on a regular basis, much like you, chess_gg, and the young cousin you were telling us about..
Some competitive multiplayer game players have a saying:
"Don't blame someone for taking your kill. They might have saved your life."
Who knows, if you prevent your opponent from resigning, the tables might just turn in their favour, and you'd wish you'd let them resign after you've lost to a three-way mate nobody ever foresaw them doing.
I understand if you have formulated your plan and are excited to try it out, chances are your opponent has also seen it and it's not gonna be as much fun for him if it plays out.
I normally have the opposite problem of people not resigning in clearly lost positions, I recently played a match and had to mate a guy with a king and rook ending, it was kinda obvious I wasn't gonna screw it up but he still played on, sour grapes sometimes I feel, he didn't learn anything from the experience that's for sure.
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=84251243
May 9, 2014
0
#35
power_2_the_people wrote:
People are strange.
This is ironic. What about Power_2_the_(strange)_people?
Joking apart, I am really sorry because I get the impression somebody minded me disturbing this looping autoreferential discussion about resigning or not, with a pointless sidestory about cousins and nephews.
However, I don't think my position is totally lost yet...
I won't resign, for the moment
:-P
yeah well kinda annoying when someone's nearly taking up the whole 3 days per move every time.
I know they're allowed to but whatever, it's douchey in my opinion.
Yeah it's in the rules, there's nothing in the rules to stop you letting the time run out if you are losing instead of resigning.
Just because it's 'in the rules' doesn't mean it's cool to do.
wow reading the first post is a minute of my life i'll never get back....
No thats a huge waste of time. I was up a queen rook knight and my opponent decided to still play on because he wanted to WASTE my time along with his because he was angry.
Instead of resigning you'd be waiting 10 minutes for my flag to drop. Have fun!
This thread contains a idea that was typed about faster than it was thought about.