Can we get an option to play No Resign Games?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
3 days? I prefer 5 days/move.
[COMMENT DELETED]
You, Monsieur owltuna, rattle my bones to the core!
How could you generalize on any community like that! D:
Yeah okay, kayn, that was meant to remain a secret but ok yes we are...
hmmm...
It's going to be something in between 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest' and 'Murphy' by Samuel Beckett (that is where chess enters the picture) also something with reminiscences from 'The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether' (plus the usual scattered refrences to Zweig and Nabokov),
anyway at the monent we are auditioning for Doctor Spivey...
are you in?
Well, if Mr. McMurphy doesn't want to take his medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way. 
owltuna wrote:
Zarwan wrote:
You, Monsieur owltuna, rattle my bones to the core!
How could you generalize on any community like that! D:
Call me predjudiced.
.
.
.
lolK
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? Of course he became furious and played on for another 30 moves, using up all his remaining time, until he got mated. Didn't really bother me, i was in the bar about 95 % of the time.
Hasn't spoken to me for about 30 years now.
30 years ?....that's a bit much....
kaynight wrote:
nobody : Bit arrogant to introduce speech play over the board. I'm with your opponent on this one. How disrespectful of you.
I thought you had gone on holiday.
kaynight wrote:
nobody : Bit arrogant to introduce speech play over the board. I'm with your opponent on this one. How disrespectful of you.
So, it's not disrespectful to waste my time like that?
Oops, it's kaynight.
Remember the good old days when there threads whining about opponents not resigning?
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
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.
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.
A turn-based game can be very tedious when you are playing an obviously won endgame that still requires 20+ moves to finish.