Do most GM games end in resignation?

Do most GM games end in resignation? From the ones I have reviewed, it seems like it.

Yes either resignation or agreed drawn. Very few end in checkmate

They almost always either end in resignation or a draw.

I enjoy reading some books on older tournaments and games, and some of them ended in "white announces mate in 5, game ended.".

But other than that, most of them seems to end in resignation before mate or heavy loss of material.

Is this because they can see so mucher further ahead than mere patzers?

When I view many games I am sometimes lost as to why one side or the other resigned.

No, patzers can see farther than GMs.

 Yes, but in which direction?

Most GM games end in a draw. Getting mated is considered to be extremely shameful, no one plays till checkmate. At one point it was even fashionable to resign at such (lost) positions where amateurs stared and asked what happened.

That sounds pretty cool. Are we allowed to do that now? The only problem would be a mistake in calculation.

If I remember it correctly, announcing mate in x is being considered irritating your opponent.

Yes, most GM games end in a draw. It is believed by many that the reason for this is because GMs play "not to loose first", and if possible then "look for the win".

I also read about the Russian Team, who would offer quick draws to each other in tournaments, but fight for the win against other opponents, all to ensure that the winner was a Russian. I don't know to what extent such "Team Strategy" exists today. I also believe that because of the high % of draws certain tournaments such as "Corus", recently implemented small rule changes to discourage early draws eg. no draws before move 40.

 I dont know if this is a rule but I find this very annoying. I once had a coach who did this.

Maybe I should try this sort of trash talking in my games... lol

Seems like alot of the satisfaction someone would get playing chess, would be missing if you rarely checkmated anyone.. Oh well, that's something I will never have to worry about...playing a GM   

tho i think u forfeit if ur dont have mate

Yeah, all amateurs have that moment when reviewing a GM game, when one side resigns, and they think wait it's not over yet!  But their technique and knowledge make the win/loss overly obvious, the same way a King vs King+Queen is obvious to a complete beginner.

lol

I say screw fashion. These GM's baby each other. I'm not resigning until I'm down big material with no counterchances at all.

 I had CM9000 and used to look over the "classical games" I remeber one (Khalifman vs Grischuk I think) that ended with about 8 pieces on the board from both sides hanging all at once and the anotation said "after the smoke clears white is up a piece so black resigns 1-0" and I remeber sitting there for almost over an hour to try to work out HOW IN THE WORLD the tactics worked, I swear there were like 20 tempting continuations, and at the end I couldn't figure it out so I reved up the engine and the final winning combo was like 10 moves long and involved white even allowing a few checks which are notoriously hard to calculate...All that just to say GMs can see stuff that we sometimes cannot- so they resign in positions that the average player doesn't understand sometimes.

Well, for them it's just a matter of showing their skills. That is, if one GM catches another thinking he's ok while he's totally lost, that's considered a disgrace. For this very reason GMs often play in the "I also see that you're winning" game, thus underscoring how good they are.

Naturally, the weaker the player is, the more rarely he resigns. A complete beginner may even miss mate in one. A noob will play a knight down. A GM may easily resign being down a pawn or two for no compensation.

I always wondered if they did it to try to look good. I often see losing tactical variations in my games but I simply play them out with the hope that my opponent doesn't see one of the moves.