It's very n00Bish to think games must be played to checkmate among experienced players it's considered poor manners to beat a dead horse and refuse to resign a dead lost position
Can we get an option to play No Resign Games?
Sort:
kleelof wrote:
MetalRatel wrote:
Every tournament game should end with capture of the king.
I watched a documentary from the 80's about chess in Washington Park in NYC.
One of the local rules was that you didn't have to say 'check'. And if your opponent doesn't see it, you werea allowed to capture his king.
This, to me, seems more natural than the current rules. The current rule, like some of the other rules in chess, seem to have been made by uptight players who wanted to try and lessen their blunders through legislation.
What about accidentally moving into check? Illegal move, or just play on and capture the king?
RG1951 wrote:
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.
Chess on the whole is about winning. Each individual game is also about learning things that will improve your game and help you to win more in the future.
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?
I originally learnt to play chess from my parents at a very young age. Most of the games I played early on were against my mother. Twenty-five years later, we still play, and neither of us ever resigns. I don't remember if we ever verbally agreed not to resign, or we just didn't, but as a consequence the endgame is the strongest part of my game, and I got very good at finding checkmates even when down material, and avoiding stalemates when winning or trying for them when behind.
Against other players, I will usually resign when the position is lost, and have no feeling either way regarding whether my opponent should resign — a win is a win. Sometimes I will play on if I think I have a good chance of getting a stalemate from a losing position, but I never drag it out too long.
May 13, 2014
0
#66
Another point of view could be:
Chess is about making your leisure time interesting.
Winning and losing are 'sad' necessities that have to be put up with, in order to make it more interesting...
Well one player actually resigned again and again even when that player was ahead in the game of chess. Why do they do that ? Losing score points and letting you climb ?
Ronnee wrote:
Well one player actually resigned again and again even when that player was ahead in the game of chess. Why do they do that ? Losing score points and letting you climb ?
That's called "sandbagging". The original aim is to keep a low rating to be able to enter tournaments with money prizes in section where you will easily win.
Now for online chess with no prize, I don't see the point, but some people still do it.
This is such a weird conversation.
What is the common advice to novices? "Study your endgames first."
What's the best way for a novice to practice their study and start to learn how to setup winning endgames with proper middlegame play? Play games that lead to endgames, then play out the endgame to ensure you've learned the mate.
So why wouldn't this be a legitimate option for players to agree to no resignation before play? Obviously no one expects better players to be clicking that option, but that seems the straw man argument thrown up in most of this thread. And there is so much vitriol and condescension about such a simple and obvious feature...
Novices should not resign. Novices make blunders that cost pieces, even power pieces like the rook and queen. When novices play a game where they get a small advantage and then have their opponent resign, they have wasted their time because it is precisely that holding on to a lead and playing it out to the conclusion that they need to practice.
Having a way to agree to that prior to the game is a perfectly good request. If you are better than that, clearly don't click that option.
May 13, 2014
0
#70
chess_gg wrote:
See, kaynight...you are right that no one should ask you to resign. That is definitely bad manners.
I wrote: Once, after I was up a rook for about 15 moves without any real compensation I asked my opponent (OTB) if he didn't think it's about time to resign?
As you can clearly see i didn't ask him to resign. I asked his OPINION on his own BEHAVIOR.
That's a subtle but important difference. It's bad manners to play on in a totally lost position without any chance at all.
May 13, 2014
0
#71
kaynight wrote:
You entered into dialogue with your opponent. Unforgivable!
So if i offer him/her a cup of coffee at the start of the game, that's unforgivable? And i never bring my sword to the game.
Et c'est ne pas un faux pas, c'est un remarque très approprié.
Macer-75 wrote:
You should only resign if there is no possible way to win or draw
I suppose hoping that the opponent drops dead from cardiac arrest one move away from checkmate is a "possible way" ?
kaynight wrote:
irontiger: We think alike.
That's because I am in your brain.
Macer-75 wrote:
Also here is the troll of the month contest. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/official-nominations-for-the-chesscom-troll-of-the-month-may-2014
Banning you once isn't enough?
Do a 'Most Disappointing Return of the Month' and I might vote.
May 13, 2014
0
#78
My, what a big ego you have. Don't flatter yourself. I wouldn't stalk you honey. You're not interesting enough.
Gigi Sir, I do believe you have a secret admirer. I think she likes to stalk older men on here.
capturing the king is rather silly and resignation is part of the game. one can lose with dignity. only reason why there should be a no resign game option is your mo fo sadistic ego.
besides all that, how do you stop a player from just letting time run out instead of resigning. and that would make it worse, wouldn't it?
Remember the good old days when there threads whining about opponents not resigning?