I think not resigning in lost positions can also give people an opportunity to practice endgame checkmates, and how to convert to an endgame that they can win.
if you are about to lose badly, do you resign or continue?
Sort:
today i got an endgame brilliancy!!!
SorryImAnon wrote:
its fine. thinking otherwise is an insult to the game and the contracted agreement to play.
Please demonstrate how this is true.
continue any way
deaf_blue_bottles wrote:
I'd rather demonstrate how you took the troll's bait too easily.
...he said, not realizing he had responded to a statement not even directed at him that provoked him, and how he qualified for his own conclusion thereby.
SorryImAnon wrote:
Indeed. While some players here are "never say die!" most veterans know when to quit and would rather move on than have grandiose ideas of winning a lost game. Even though, yeah their opponent may be much lower in rating. And you know, that is the most underplayed nuance missing in these types of forums. Cool, you need to have confidence in yourself but also cool is knowing yourself: resigning in a seemingly lost position is not a sign of weakness. More has to do with one's own experience and philosophy towards chess; nevertheless, it's just a game. ✌🏽A matter of practicality mind you. To be honest, in a Daily game, if I were playing you and you had a dominating position; Yeah, I would resign straight away...but if I were ultimately winning, cool I would just be patient and make forcing moves to make you have to resign. Out of respect and civility. As it is, clearly some people think they are better than another and dismiss such social concepts; (respect & civility) just think to yourself "cool. I was outplayed this game-I gotcha next game".😉
SunTzu_56 wrote:
if you continue play in a hopeless position, just praying for a mistake, you need to just resign. such play is weak.
nah noone has to take that from u
SorryImAnon wrote:
Nobody needs a reason to play out a position and it isn't to be questioned either. Once two players agree to a game, it's theirs to play and getting sour over playing too long or too short is an insult to that agreement, to your opponent who is doing as they see fit and to yourself who opted into that situation in the first place. There's just no defending it.
I never said anything about actually questioning a player who decides to play out a game. That's *their* choice. I'm free to not play a rematch. I'm talking about one's own personal choice to waste both player's time. I don't do it. Some people do, and they are, indeed, wasting both players' time.
If you do that against me, I'm going to find a less boring opponent, but I am not going to chastise them.
Easily defended.
SorryImAnon wrote:
btickler wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
Nobody needs a reason to play out a position and it isn't to be questioned either. Once two players agree to a game, it's theirs to play and getting sour over playing too long or too short is an insult to that agreement, to your opponent who is doing as they see fit and to yourself who opted into that situation in the first place. There's just no defending it.
I never said anything about actually questioning a player who decides to play out a game. That's *their* choice. I'm free to not play a rematch. I'm talking about one's own personal choice to waste both player's time. I don't do it. Some people do, and they are, indeed, wasting both players' time.
Easily defended.
It's not wasting time, it's playing the game. You don't have anything to argue with.
Tell me how you like to fill out the rest of the tic tac toe boxes after it's a draw, too 
. After all, the game is not over.
najdorf96 wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
Indeed. While some players here are "never say die!" most veterans know when to quit and would rather move on than have grandiose ideas of winning a lost game. Even though, yeah their opponent may be much lower in rating. And you know, that is the most underplayed nuance missing in these types of forums. Cool, you need to have confidence in yourself but also cool is knowing yourself: resigning in a seemingly lost position is not a sign of weakness. More has to do with one's own experience and philosophy towards chess; nevertheless, it's just a game. ✌🏽A matter of practicality mind you. To be honest, in a Daily game, if I were playing you and you had a dominating position; Yeah, I would resign straight away...but if I were ultimately winning, cool I would just be patient and make forcing moves to make you have to resign. Out of respect and civility. As it is, clearly some people think they are better than another and dismiss such social concepts; (respect & civility) just think to yourself "cool. I was outplayed this game-I gotcha next game".😉
SunTzu_56 wrote:
if you continue play in a hopeless position, just praying for a mistake, you need to just resign. such play is weak.
nah noone has to take that from u
Freekin well said. just the thought i was trying to convey.
SorryImAnon wrote:
btickler wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
Nobody needs a reason to play out a position and it isn't to be questioned either. Once two players agree to a game, it's theirs to play and getting sour over playing too long or too short is an insult to that agreement, to your opponent who is doing as they see fit and to yourself who opted into that situation in the first place. There's just no defending it.
I never said anything about actually questioning a player who decides to play out a game. That's *their* choice. I'm free to not play a rematch. I'm talking about one's own personal choice to waste both player's time. I don't do it. Some people do, and they are, indeed, wasting both players' time.
Easily defended.
It's not wasting time, it's playing the game. You don't have anything to argue with.
Anon. your responses make you only slightly less hot. im still a fan though.
deaf_blue_bottles wrote:
The two things I've got going for me are:
1) There's a difference in intent. You didn't intend to provoke me, your natural gullibility provoked me. @sorryimanon was (and is) trying to provoke you.
2) I've been on the forums a long time, so I know you're not a troll, you're just a normal person.
Funny how all the trolls that have to keep making new accounts (yourself included here) consider me gullible, or triggered, or what have you . Yet, I'm still here, and trolls that engage with me...not so much.
The other aspect of this you fail to grasp is that my posts are for a wider audience and purpose than just going toe-to-toe with yet another sockpuppet.
Chomky_Cheese wrote:
Indeed. Cool, Magnus is a great role model but not for practical, everyday, average players. He literally spends most of his time, livelihood training with high caliber seconds, latest tech & theory, his lifestyle is one we could hardly imagine of attaining. Dont be unrealistic. ponz is one of America's great masters of Chess. Very respected and not to be dismissed as if he's just another patzer commenting on such a germane, mundane, colloquial topic like this. "Nope" your butt, man. Yeah, I like your attitude but since you're just another opinionated youngster who hasn't experienced as much chess as we have and a would be "know-it-all" : I am pretty sure as you get on in Chess & Life, you will know for yourself just when it is warranted to play on or when to be humble and resign. Again, it's just a game; and playin's always the thing with me 😉
ponz111 wrote:
The stronger you are in chess--the more likely you will resign in such situations'
Actually nope. Magnus played on despite blundering a piece, in a recent game I blundered a knight against a 2100, but found dynamic attacking chances and won. At the higher levels, the more you understand if everything is off the board, pawn for pawn piece for piece, being a knight down is a draw.
Oct 23, 2019
0
#54
btickler wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
btickler wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
*snip*
Tell me how you like to fill out the rest of the tic tac toe boxes after it's a draw, too . After all, the game is not over.
Actually this doesn't make much sense. The tic tac toe start position is as drawn as the chess endgame position you showed is won. In both cases, there is a possibility of a mistake changing the outcome.
However an obviously drawn ttt position means there is no way to form a straight line which is similar to an unwinable situation like K+B vs K. Then again this may not be obvious to all but a arbiter should be able to call it.
autobunny wrote:
Actually this doesn't make much sense. The tic tac toe start position is as drawn as the chess endgame position you showed is won. In both cases, there is a possibility of a mistake changing the outcome.
However an obviously drawn ttt position means there is no way to form a straight line which is similar to an unwinable situation like K+B vs K. Then again this may not be obvious to all but a arbiter should be able to call it.
It makes the point that I am trying to make, that there's no inherent "integrity" to playing out the game to mate (the opposite, in fact, is the established etiquette of the last several centuries of modern chess).
Yes, Tic Tac Toe is not a perfect analogy, but why bother digging up some obscure game whose rule set is a directly analogous match for this scenario...then I would have to explain it.
SorryImAnon wrote:
Indeed. Probably not as much as I would think a World-Class Player would, but hella more than an average player here on chess.com (like us and way more than MrChomp) methinks. If we're being honest here, right? I'm sure if Chomp did some actual research into Magnus' games as a whole he would find many games where Carlson humbly resigned where he was simply outplayed. ✌🏽
najdorf96 wrote:
Chomky_Cheese wrote:
Indeed. Cool, Magnus is a great role model but not for practical, everyday, average players. He literally spends most of his time, livelihood training with high caliber seconds, latest tech & theory, his lifestyle is one we could hardly imagine of attaining. Dont be unrealistic. ponz is one of America's great masters of Chess. Very respected and not to be dismissed as if he's just another patzer commenting on such a germane, mundane, colloquial topic like this. "Nope" your butt, man. Yeah, I like your attitude but since you're just another opinionated youngster who hasn't experienced as much chess as we have and a would be "know-it-all" : I am pretty sure as you get on in Chess & Life, you will know for yourself just when it is warranted to play on or when to be humble and resign. Again, it's just a game; and playin's always the thing with me 😉
ponz111 wrote:
The stronger you are in chess--the more likely you will resign in such situations'
Actually nope. Magnus played on despite blundering a piece, in a recent game I blundered a knight against a 2100, but found dynamic attacking chances and won. At the higher levels, the more you understand if everything is off the board, pawn for pawn piece for piece, being a knight down is a draw.
Nah, Magnus doesn't spend as much time with the tech as you think.
well, i guess im about to be punished for my rampant flirting. i now have 4 or 6 rated challenge matches from Anon. 
btickler wrote:
autobunny wrote:
Actually this doesn't make much sense. The tic tac toe start position is as drawn as the chess endgame position you showed is won. In both cases, there is a possibility of a mistake changing the outcome.
However an obviously drawn ttt position means there is no way to form a straight line which is similar to an unwinable situation like K+B vs K. Then again this may not be obvious to all but a arbiter should be able to call it.
It makes the point that I am trying to make, that there's no inherent "integrity" to playing out the game to mate (the opposite, in fact, is the established etiquette of the last several centuries of modern chess).
Yes, Tic Tac Toe is not a perfect analogy, but why bother digging up some obscure game whose rule set is a directly analogous match for this scenario...then I would have to explain it.
no analingus talk!
SunTzu_56 wrote: well, i guess im about to be punished for my rampant flirting. i now have 4 or 6 rated challenge matches from Anon.  Indeed. Cool, my friend! Heh. Play on! Looking at both you guys's profiles & stats: should be a cool match! Keep us updated, k? Double cool😎
najdorf96 wrote:
SunTzu_56 wrote: well, i guess im about to be punished for my rampant flirting. i now have 4 or 6 rated challenge matches from Anon.  Indeed. Cool, my friend! Heh. Play on! Looking at both you guys's profiles & stats: should be a cool match! Keep us updated, k? Double cool😎
you seem like a ccccool dude!
or maybe it's not about learning something, or respect, or winning---maybe it's just wasting time. why is that seen to be so negative. have you never played just to kill a couple hours...? why should every game be so very serious...? ((would you like to wander aimlessly in my direction for a while...?))
There's a difference between engaging leisure time and wasting one's time. Go ahead and waste your own time then, I guess...I'd rather start a new game
.