OP got irked when he lost a losing game anyway, and he wantedhis opponent to resign before he (OP) can be checkmated! lol!
The following game should be the benchmark of all chess players, winning or losing, accept a draw: :D
i played some guy recently who resigned because i nobbled his queen ..i've heard of this before some kinda doom thing that once you lose your queen then the whole of totality folds in on the game ....what a bunch of fooey!!!!
There could be several innocent explanations. Endgame practise.
I once had someone resign because i took his Bishop, and that was it, no other pieces gone at all.
The funny thing is Heidrich was making a joke. As he actually lost the game while he was up a full piece. Folks should play through the completed game before flaming him.
Thanks for clarifying this. I found the topic title confusing after watching the game.
Had a guy actually resign because I put him in a bad position, he didnt see anywhere good from it, so he resigned.
Actually its not resigning that I hate, not the people themselves!
the thing is how are these people ever going to learn end game in chess if they keep running away from it on a misguided noble idea that chess is a gentlemans game and they must resign under some phooey ideal or other so cos its close to xmas i will quote the famous scrooge piece "BAH HUMBUG"....ANY ONE FOR CHESS .
Lady Gaga gets into lots of bad positions but looks really good in them!
The only thing I can contribute to this discussion that could explain those not resigning is a personal philosophy: Lose because you were beaten, not because you gave up.
ill go with that one my tech shadow
haha, after reading above, we have both ends of spectrum. Respectfully, 9xave resigning is not childish. It is a sporting way of admitting that loss is unavoidable. You will not that most GM's resign, even the adult GM's, rather than wasting both players time playing until they are mated. On the flip side, if an amateur is not good enough to realize they are beat, or perhaps too young or naive to realize the remainder of the game is futile, we should still try to treat them with some kindness good sportsmanship. In other words, we dont need to belittle someone for not realizing the game is already lost for them. Happy chess.
Another thing to consider is that you play on despite knowing that you are lost. The point is, even if you resign and wouldn't have won anyway, you are still not improving your result compared to playing on and losing. So I view playing on unlikely positions as accepting a free lottery ticket: it probably won't help you at all, but at least you know you're not going to lose money.
Generally when I play on, I think that I'm going to lose, which is counter to the assumption that a person who plays on thinks he's still going to win.
Not necessarily, paulgottlieb; see my post above. It is quite possible to think your opponent can rather easily win the position in front of you and still keep playing figuring that if a miracle doesn't happen, you're still not worse off.
People think they can read a person's mind based on ambiguous things like resign choice, or whether or not he types gg.
to continue playing rather than resign can help you understand more of where you went wrong in the game so rather than a sign of arrogance its more helpful to the weaker player.
In my view the main reason to resign is to avoid wasting everyone's time. You can be totally lost but still drag the game on for a long time. That's just a waste. Better to admit defeat and start a new game.
i prefer to play to the end!show me how to give mate quickly.if you cant do that play someone who quits (preematurley) play someone elseread 5000 reasons you shouldent be playing chessit will also give you a better understanding of MATH (lol) yours truly...Bob Cat:
Isnt resigning like quiting in the middle of the game.
It's impossable to be woken upin the middle of a good sleep.