Any chess game is enjoyable, mainly because i enjoy playing chess. There's nothing sadistic about achieving checkmate, in fact checkmate is the very objective 9f the game.
Is there a no resignation option on chess?
Sort:
No, you play chess to achieve checkmate. Playing chess is something I enjoy. If you don't that's up to you.
I do play against computers.
I get where the OP is coming from, it can be a bit anti climatic when you have a few resigns in a row.
Aug 25, 2020
0
#28
I had to resign from my games group and tournament matches because i had to evacuate my home when the California fires hit my town . . .
I let most people I was playing know what was happening to me . . .
First the electricity was shut off. No Wi-Fi connection and the gas . . .I
Then evacuation the fires were behind my home . . .
I have no cell phone! . . .
Sometimes there's necessities that come up beyond our control . . .
Aug 25, 2020
0
#29
SchaakVoorAlles wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
Any chess game is enjoyable, mainly because i enjoy playing chess. There's nothing sadistic about achieving checkmate, in fact checkmate is the very objective 9f the game.
Finishing off an opponent that is massively down in material and hopelessly lost is about as enjoyable as beating up a 5-year old and as reprehensible. Strong players resign when, at their level, they know they have no hope.
Exactly
SchaakVoorAlles wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
Any chess game is enjoyable, mainly because i enjoy playing chess. There's nothing sadistic about achieving checkmate, in fact checkmate is the very objective 9f the game.
Finishing off an opponent that is massively down in material and hopelessly lost is about as enjoyable as beating up a 5-year old and as reprehensible. Strong players resign when, at their level, they know they have no hope.
Checkmate is NOT the objective of the game The objective of the game is to win or, if that isn't possible, to draw. Checkmate is just one of the three ways of winning.. The others are winning on time and achieving such superiority that your opponent resigns. There are six ways to draw: stalemate, perpetual check, 3-fold repetition, 50-move rule, insufficient material to mate, and by agreement. So there are nine possible ways to end a chess game.
I agree that if a player has some devious trick in mind, say a stalemating combination, then it is worth continuing, but as soon as the opponent shows that they know how to win the position resigning is the polite thing to do. Also, if the opponent has run very short of time it is okay to play on ... handling the clock well is part of the game. But playing on, hoping for a succession of gross blunders, when hopelessly lost, when the opponent has time in hand, and when they are clearly strong enough to convert their advantage ... well it is just insulting. Anyone that does that against me gets blocked!
Calculator is right. Checkmate is the objective of the game. Wikipedia even uses that identical language, "the objective is to checkmate the opponents king". Even chess.com, under the rules of how to play chess states something similar, "the purpose of the game is to checkmate the opponents king".
Yes, there are other ways to win. But they are not the purpose or objective of the game. It's no different than any other competition. There are lots of ways to win that do not involve the purpose of the competition, cheating, disqualification, forfeit, injury, accident, etc.
Aug 25, 2020
0
#31
lfPatriotGames wrote:
SchaakVoorAlles wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
Any chess game is enjoyable, mainly because i enjoy playing chess. There's nothing sadistic about achieving checkmate, in fact checkmate is the very objective 9f the game.
Finishing off an opponent that is massively down in material and hopelessly lost is about as enjoyable as beating up a 5-year old and as reprehensible. Strong players resign when, at their level, they know they have no hope.
Checkmate is NOT the objective of the game The objective of the game is to win or, if that isn't possible, to draw. Checkmate is just one of the three ways of winning.. The others are winning on time and achieving such superiority that your opponent resigns. There are six ways to draw: stalemate, perpetual check, 3-fold repetition, 50-move rule, insufficient material to mate, and by agreement. So there are nine possible ways to end a chess game.
I agree that if a player has some devious trick in mind, say a stalemating combination, then it is worth continuing, but as soon as the opponent shows that they know how to win the position resigning is the polite thing to do. Also, if the opponent has run very short of time it is okay to play on ... handling the clock well is part of the game. But playing on, hoping for a succession of gross blunders, when hopelessly lost, when the opponent has time in hand, and when they are clearly strong enough to convert their advantage ... well it is just insulting. Anyone that does that against me gets blocked!
Calculator is right. Checkmate is the objective of the game. Wikipedia even uses that identical language, "the objective is to checkmate the opponents king". Even chess.com, under the rules of how to play chess states something similar, "the purpose of the game is to checkmate the opponents king".
Yes, there are other ways to win. But they are not the purpose or objective of the game. It's no different than any other competition. There are lots of ways to win that do not involve the purpose of the competition, cheating, disqualification, forfeit, injury, accident, etc.
Checkmate may be the objective of the game, but is it worth it to play on in hopeless positions?
"Finishing off an opponent that is massively down in material and hopelessly lost is about as enjoyable as beating up a 5-year old and as reprehensible. Strong players resign when, at their level, they know they have no hope."
Aug 25, 2020
0
#32
Well, happily the rules of chess are what decides and those who complain about an opponent being disrespectful for resigning either too early or too late are free to carry on doing without it having any effect whatsoever on the rules of the game!
@TheCalculatorKid should open a no resign campaign for the noble thoughts in the two discussions.
Aug 25, 2020
0
#34
BESERK!
+ NEVER resigns!
+ ALWAYS attacks!
- Attacking may not be the best move
Would you like to get this perk? Y/N
SNUDOO wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
SchaakVoorAlles wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
Any chess game is enjoyable, mainly because i enjoy playing chess. There's nothing sadistic about achieving checkmate, in fact checkmate is the very objective 9f the game.
Finishing off an opponent that is massively down in material and hopelessly lost is about as enjoyable as beating up a 5-year old and as reprehensible. Strong players resign when, at their level, they know they have no hope.
Checkmate is NOT the objective of the game The objective of the game is to win or, if that isn't possible, to draw. Checkmate is just one of the three ways of winning.. The others are winning on time and achieving such superiority that your opponent resigns. There are six ways to draw: stalemate, perpetual check, 3-fold repetition, 50-move rule, insufficient material to mate, and by agreement. So there are nine possible ways to end a chess game.
I agree that if a player has some devious trick in mind, say a stalemating combination, then it is worth continuing, but as soon as the opponent shows that they know how to win the position resigning is the polite thing to do. Also, if the opponent has run very short of time it is okay to play on ... handling the clock well is part of the game. But playing on, hoping for a succession of gross blunders, when hopelessly lost, when the opponent has time in hand, and when they are clearly strong enough to convert their advantage ... well it is just insulting. Anyone that does that against me gets blocked!
Calculator is right. Checkmate is the objective of the game. Wikipedia even uses that identical language, "the objective is to checkmate the opponents king". Even chess.com, under the rules of how to play chess states something similar, "the purpose of the game is to checkmate the opponents king".
Yes, there are other ways to win. But they are not the purpose or objective of the game. It's no different than any other competition. There are lots of ways to win that do not involve the purpose of the competition, cheating, disqualification, forfeit, injury, accident, etc.
Checkmate may be the objective of the game, but is it worth it to play on in hopeless positions?
"Finishing off an opponent that is massively down in material and hopelessly lost is about as enjoyable as beating up a 5-year old and as reprehensible. Strong players resign when, at their level, they know they have no hope."
That's not for me to decide. If someone wants to resign, great, they should. If someone wants to play on, great, they should.
I was just commenting on what Schaak said about the objective of the game. He said winning is the objective, but it's not. Checkmate is the objective. Winning can come a variety of different ways that have nothing to do with the objective of the game. Maybe that's why they call it the objective of the game and not the subjective of the game.
Let's say people have their own problems for which they resign, the opponent may not settle for a draw if you offer them as it is their problem, not of their opponent's.
CleverOak wrote:
I have NEVER resigned a game on chess.com. I’m not a quitter. If there was an emergency I would tell them, and then draw.
For this*
Aug 25, 2020
0
#39
faaagamer wrote:
CleverOak wrote:
I have NEVER resigned a game on chess.com. I’m not a quitter. If there was an emergency I would tell them, and then draw.
For this*
What if they decline draw
faaagamer wrote:
Let's say people have their own problems for which they resign, the opponent may not settle for a draw if you offer them as it is their problem, not of their opponent's.
YES. If someone wants to resign (or play on) they do it for their own reasons. I know I am not capable of deciding, for someone else, what their priorities are. Or should be.
@jenium no of course not. I'd prefer it if the played the game till its conclusion.