Once the following criteria are met:
I resign. I'm not going to continue to play on just so you can have some stupid satisfaction of executing a checkmate. If you take offense to not being allowed to physically execute the mate, you are an utter moron. Take the win, and be happy!
I generally play out my games, not to give them the satisfaction, but in the (sometimes vain) hope for a blunder that allows me to turn the tables or force a draw.
Check out the lasker-thomas game from 1912. Thomas resigned with his king on g2, right before the most beautiful checkmate that I've come across (although lasker said in the post mortum that his mate was not the 0-0-0# that we all know was the correct move - his was simply Kd2# BLAH!). It's a part of the game. There is no thunder stealing. Think of it as your opponent not wanting to waste your time with a game you've already won.
Thank you, Micky. As a rather poor player I am interested in how to use pieces in combinations. The endgame play of better players is of great value to me. I want to see how it's done, not just read about how it's done.
Generally, i am more pleased with a victory if i execute a checkmate rather than have my opponent resign. Since the point of the game is to have fun, i would suggest that you allow a checkmate from your opponent to happen, but only if it is inevitable in a few moves. What is described in the first post clearly describes someone intending to belittle your victory by resignation immediatly before a checkmate. Resignation should be reserved for when there is much more to be played but there is no point due to a clear material disadvantage.
Resigning never "steals the glory of a checkmate". The object of the game is to win, not checkmate. A resignation surely suffices to that.
It doesn't matter, really, whether you play it out or resign. What DOES matter--especially in an online game of 3+ days per move--is running down your clock until the last minute and then making your move in a hopelessly lost position.
If you're lost, then either resign like a gentleman or make your moves in a timely manner and get the game over with. I've had several opponents so far who were making two or three moves per day until it was clear that they were losing. Then all of a sudden the moves came in once every 70 hours. Yes, I still won, but they played like spoiled children--which they might have been.
It doesn't matter. Ok? It's up to them. People resign whenever they resign. What does it matter when exactly they do it? If you'r so stuck on the 'glory' of check mating try to somehow dig real deep and enjoy the glory of winning.....jeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz
What bugs me is when people know they're going to lose, and they drain the clock. If you know you're losing, it doesn't matter whether you let your opponent checkmate you or you resign.
If you get the satisfaction of executing the checkmate, that is great, and if your opponent resigns, then you get a win. Either way, the etiquette comes from the losing player making a decision, and not wasting either player's time.
If checkmate is inevitable and my opponent refuses to resign, I will promote as many pawns as possible, capture all his pieces, and have fun. I don't see it as disrespectful. In fact, he is disrespecting me by not resigning; he always has that option.
Resigning never "steals the glory of a checkmate". The object of the game is to win, not checkmate. A resignation surely suffices to that.
I love doing this! Of course if you get careless and allow a stalemate you look like an idiot.
I understand when someone who is new to chess, he wants excitement, self motivation and to checkmate someone is very self satificating for a beginner. I think this may motivate them to improve in chess. As soon as they reach appropriate level they will understand that resigning in lost positions is the right way. In higher levels we can see resigns even with the material is equal but the position is strategically lost... Anyway good luck to your future improvement in chess!
personaly idc if i get inevetable checkmate in a few moves and the guy resigns thats as good as mate to me and truth be told I dont care how i win time resignation mate all lagitamate wins in my book and thats the only important thing.
I resign when I am 2 pawns or a piece behind - usually
What you did is the normal otb etiquette.
personaly idc if i get inevetable checkmate in a few moves and the guy resigns thats as good as mate to me and truth be told I dont care how i win time resignation mate all lagitamate wins in my book and thats the only important thing.
I agree wholeheartedly with "... thats as good as mate to me." Resignation when mate is inevitable, is precisely the same as playing it out. Most of chess is played in the mind. During the game, threats on the board are real -- in the mind, all kinds of violence occur and have to be averted or dealt with. When it comes to the end of the game, and the end is inescapable, resignation means nothing more than "I accept that you have checkmated me."
It HAS HAPPENED -- just not on the board. Beginners love to use the word "checkmate." There is some satisfaction to be had. Nothing is denied by your opponent saying "I resign," however. "But if a player has an inevitable checkmate within a couple of moves, should you steal their checkmate glory and resign?" You steal nothing by acknowledging their "glory" prior to the final move.
As you become more experienced, you will realize that they are the same thing. And, as others have indicated, playing out an obviously lost position can be insulting to the more thin-skinned.
All long as someone that you are playing a game with is following the rules of the game and chess.com.....then so what if they resign when it is mate in one or use up all their time until the last second and then make a move..
I'm inclined to agree.
If an opponent plays until checkmate, so be it. I don't know his motives, so I assume no disrespect. If I win the game, I am pleased with the result. Even in a correspondence game, faced with a forced mate in several moves (for example, a simple K & R vs. K), unless in a tournament where the timely completion of the game was relevant, I wouldn't care if my opponent dragged it out. Such a game would be no drain -- I'd simply start another, and finish this one as quickly as possible, wasting only seconds in the long run.
If an opponent resigns at an appropriate time, I accept the respect shown by this, and am pleased with the result.
If an opponent resigns prematurely, I either accept the respect -- if such is the case, or the result if I at least have some advantage. If neither is in evidence, I move on with no particular feelings. (I have had an opponent resign when I was likely, in his opinion, taking to much time considering my own resignation. He quit seconds before I would have. Did I win? According to the rules, yes; according to me, NO. Do I care about this one game ... ?)
If an opponent "...use(s) up all (his) time until the last second and then make(s) a move...," that is his right. It may not be the most respectable conduct, but there is nothing wrong with it within the rules. I may sigh in slight exasperation at such attempts, but I don't get bent out of shape by them. When one agrees to a game, one agrees to the time control. The actual use of that time is up to the players. As unpleasant as it may be to deal with someone attempting to gain advantage with last second gimmicks, I know that I committed to the full time allowed by the control, regardless of the details of its utilization. I'll not let an opponent escape via such cheap tricks. It may not have been the best possible use of my time, but I agreed to it up front. Besides, I may have learned something by studying the position. Win the game; forget the opponent; and move on.
''If checkmate is inevitable and my opponent refuses to resign, I will promote as many pawns as possible, capture all his pieces, and have fun. I don't see it as disrespectful. In fact, he is disrespecting me by not resigning; he always has that option.
''
And then to your horror you realise its a stalemate.
Just wondering what people's opinions are on resignation when mate is inevitable. I know it's accepted that if you are clearly losing, it's impolite to continue. But if a player has an inevitable checkmate within a couple of moves, should you steal their checkmate glory and resign?
I ask this because I was playing a long drawn out game where it was clear I would Queen a Pawn and eventually mate my opponent. However, he continued to play until I had a mate in 1, then resigned, thereby stealing my glory of a checkmate (which is rare for me as I'm new to the game). Needless to say it kinda hurt my feelings, which was probably his intention.
I played a similar game where I was clearly going to lose within a few moves, but I didn't want to steal his thunder so I allowed the game to play out since we were both making moves very quickly anyways.
Thoughts?