I cant stand people who dont resign -.-

@Elubas

I would be willing to extend this courtesy if I felt it were extended reciprocally. Often when I am playing a tourney or team match, if I am winning one game and losing the other, my opponent will move several times a day in the match he is winning and wait til the last day in the one I am winning. Why should I hurry and lose, when they are obviously not interested ... ?

WOW there seems to be opinions of both extreme ends here:

1- it is unsportsmanly to resign when checkmate is inevitable because I want to get the satisfaction of mating my opponent.

2- it is unsportsmanly NOT to resign a lost position becasue he is wasting my time.

I personally resign when I think the game is hopeless but I do not believe anyone should be pressured into resigning. I let my opponent decide when resignation is appropriate. no hard feelings either way.

I can't believe some people can get so offended over this

nameno1had: I bet a lot of those guys do just want to waste your time; I don't disagree that they are being jerks there. In correspondence it is easier to gather "evidence," if you will, of jerkish behavior.

What are you joking me?

How are you going to turn it around and make it his fault here. Ok if he timed out because he was in the middle of game and lost due to have him to go to work ok.

But in that case he will lose a bame he never had any chance of playing. Due to a player in a situation he can not win. Not even a game that both sides have a chance to win.

You just defending the position to Not Resign to just defend it. It is clear that no matter what the condition the Non Resigner is always right and everybody else is wrong. Dead wrong. Even if it is 20-1 the non resigner has the right to make everybody else suffer miserably.

Games are meant to be played not sit around and waste time. Over a year ago these same players would take a vacation for a month with mate to go in 1-2 moves. I know you will find a way to defend that also. This is how trash talk gets started on this site. And often the wrong person gets in trouble because of this injustice. The fun of joining a tournament online would be reduced to null if this was to go unchecked.

Are you serious? Having the right to non resign in a clearly lost situation does not mean that you take it and happily make other suffer due to your lack of play in a game due to mistake or etc. Move on and learn from it. That way it does not happen in a game again.

Others labor hard to get the win not to have it taken away by a possilbe Time Out which most of these players hope for. Or they hope for a mistake which can happen as they get tired of waiting in say a 3 day move game where they take up the 3 days to move. I had to build up my playing endurance due to this nosense until it became 2nd nature.

Elubas Are you serious?

His/her  name is Pashakviolino not Parsha. Your so far out on left field now.

"How are you going to turn it around and make it his fault here."

Well, attack the logic for what it is. For example, tell me why it is not his responsibility to set enough time for him to finish tournaments, or give an argument that people should in fact be responsible for not only themselves, but other people's decisions too. That would actually address my argument.

"Due to a player in a situation he can not win."

You keep using these sentences, but the problem is that firstly, this is a subjective matter, and secondly, it's hard to know anything for sure. Maybe you can be close to sure, but not 100%.

You are wrong. Obviously it is my responsability if I take the tournament knowing that I do not have that much time, but the point is that it is frustrating that at the end you will not have time to finish it because of one person that does not want to resign in an absolute lost position.

I am not talking about a little disadvantage, I am talking about a position where one guy has 4 pawns, a queen and a rook, and the other guy has 3 pawns, and a knight. No way in hell you will win or draw in that situation. Instead of giving up, the guy with the knight spends over a minute for each move. Obviously because he is a sore loser and he wants to make wait his opponent and the rest of participants of the tournament. 

If I do not have enough time for finihsing a tournament because of normal reasons, It's OK. If I can not finish it because of one sore loser, then that is frustrating.

"You are wrong. Obviously it is my responsability if I take the tournament knowing that I do not have that much time"

"...but the point is that it is frustrating that at the end you will not have time to finish it because of one person that does not want to resign in an absolute lost position."

I can understand that it is frustrating, but otherwise I don't see how this part of your post nullifies the part that came before it -- you are still responsible, hopefully you agree.

"Instead of giving up, the guy with the knight spends over a minute for each move. Obviously because he is a sore loser and he wants to make wait his opponent and the rest of participants of the tournament."

I actually agree with you in this specific case. The opponent was probably not playing on for sincere reasons. Generally, I only assume my opponent is being spiteful in really extreme situations such as this one.

Nonetheless, you really should (for your own sake!) make sure you have plenty of time to finish your tournament, because sometimes things get delayed. You should account for that and understand that sometimes it may happen to you if you don't have enough time.

The guy is holding up the group in the tournament and oh

He is holding up the entirre Tournament waiting for his move.

And out of that you take the chance for any defense is to say he should left himself with enough time to play.

That is your method to defend a Non Resigner in a tournament clearly to make others suffer.

Are we reading the same comments Pashakviolino left ataround  number #252. How can when i was in a similar Tournament everybody talking about how the guy was jerk holding it up. We were sending messages to each other. Mostly the players new to playing online were not aware of the situation at first. They were not happy at all.

So i figure we have to feel like we are happy about a player not resigning in a tournament and holding everybody up to playing the next round. Who is going to make friends with this guy? Nobody.

Stop altering the conditions of the situation to make it in the favor of defending them to make them always correct, that 100% of the time a player should not resign. That a player never has to resign.

Honor, I said honor and character come into play. When the situation requires that for the benefit of others over yourself Resign. As you will wish the same treatment when conditions on the other side of this. Ah  ok not you clearly as you have made that point. But the rest of us want that consideration.

Elubas: "Well, attack the logic for what it is. For example, tell me why it is not his responsibility to set enough time for him to finish tournaments, or give an argument that people should in fact be responsible for not only themselves, but other people's decisions too. That would actually address my argument."

In this post #261 you are going on about something totally unrelated.

royalbishop:"Stop altering the conditions of the situation to make it in the favor of defending them to make them always correct, that 100% of the time a player should not resign. That a player never has to resign."

But I don't think that. Just look at some of my posts where I have made the concession "yes I agree this guy is just a jerk." Despite all of this, I have a feeling you will continue to accuse me of doing or saying things I am not actually saying.

We are talking about the Non Resigner here.

And your only way to defend them in this situation is find a fault in him. None. He not holding up the group and tournament. Period.

Now if he gets to start the game and loses by time it is his fault. He can not be guilty of a situation that not has happen. But the opportunity to finish that tournament is taken clearly out of his hands. He is not even playing the Non Resign thus he can not say to the guy to hurry up.

Glad you agree about the guys character now. He believed he can finish the tournament in his time off. Now if he miss judge it by some games going the distant of like 60+ moves ..... oh well. But on that same note it may last long enough while he is gone. Then when he comes back he can continue. Quickly jumping to the results here my friend.

The topic is not his time to play but Non Resigners and why people do not like them in certain situations.

On the Tournament Director

It is clear the TD has the choice of not letting them in another of his/her tournament if several players have made it an issue about the tournament being held up due to a game that can not be won. Or in a case in which the same player has no chance to move on to the next round.

where can i play without bumping-into the odd idiot?

I see you have less than 50 games here. New in a way.

Want to make friends and opponents that give you free help to improve your game. If it is mate in like 3-4 moves resign. Then ask them something like who you can improve your game or a rematch to try to improve your game.

If your in a lost situation in 3 day a move game and use up  almost all the 3 days to continue to make your moves your chance of getting helpful info from your opponent is null.

In tournaments is not the only place this is bothersome but it is #1. And it that case your name gets around like wildfire in the tournament community.

Post your game on forums, trust me sooner or later somebody will respond. May like some of the responses but you will get closer to solving your problems.

Thanks very much!  And I agree that abusing the clock's time limits during the endgame is extremely poor sportsmanship.  You seem to assume, though, that I can recognize a "lost situation," or see a mate coming from 2+ moves away ... which I assure you is giving me far too much credit.  This might hold true for others as well.

Your not in the group that does it , part of the few select.

But it has been over a year since it has become a common tactic when clearly losing a game. The bad part is that it has evolved into other tactics to win a game that is clearly lost without even hope for a draw.

How is it a tactic to continue to play chess?

"a game that is clearly lost without even hope for a draw."

Again, there is no way we could possibly know what this even is. How can I be 100% sure of anything? I can know situations where I will very probably lose, but I can't be more confident than that.

Look, if there was a position where every single combination of moves wins for a player, I would agree with you -- and in that case, you could rest assured that there is a 100% chance you will win the game, provided you don't die. What I'm sure you instead are referring to is when every combination of moves that are reasonable to you wins for a player. But sometimes people play unreasonable, inexplicable moves. Anyway, the former situation, brought up in my first sentence, is stronger than the latter.

There is a hope, as long You have human opponent !
Here's a game I shamefully "lost", but it was drawn at the end due to stalemate. I was playing some tournament, and after ruining this game decided to "play", since it's boring to wait for next game. My opponent obviously also wanted to "play" so outcome is funny:

 Sure, I learnt this lesson long ago, so such thing won't happen to me: