Pskogli, that's your opinion, but an unlikely one.
JUST MATE ME ALREADY!!
Sort:
WuGambinoKillaBee wrote:
if all ya'll truly find the player that doesnt resign, rather than the player who would promote all pawns to queens before he/she would checkmate given the opportunity, to be the real culprit [...] then i guess all i can do is conform to this unique characteristic which seperates chess from all other types of sports.
Your point seems to be this: What he did is worse than what I did. Why am I the culprit here?
My point is this: I'm not comparing your morals against his. I'm just offering a simple, logical advice that benefits you--if you want the game to end, just resign. It just makes sense. No matter how rude he was, what you did was still illogical. If you wanted to drag on the game to annoy him, then not resigning would be logical (not polite, but logical). But since you wanted the game to end, there's a simple, easy, logical solution--resign and move onto another game.
I'm not taking a "side" here. If your opponent came onto this forum and started a topic like "JUST RESIGN ALREADY!!" then people will also criticize him for not delivering a quick mate. It goes both ways.
You'll notice in the linked thread that MichaelAtRichmond posted that it does go both ways.
well, if chess doesn't work out for him, sounds like he might do well in the theatre...
(drama)
I'm probably one of those people you hate then, since when I have a clearly won position (excluding those which involve multiple sacrifices for a mating combo) I proceed to slowly strip my opponent of all their remaining pieces and chances to counterattack, not even attempting to play for a mate unless I see an idiotically simple forced mate within a few moves. I do that because I'm not always a careful player and I'm always worried that my supposed "mating combos" will have a fatal flaw that I haven't analyzed properly. It's much safer to play slowly and remove every last shred of your opponent's chances before going for the kill (not to mention it takes less brainpower too, and hence less effort on my part. I tend to play for long stretches so I try to give my brain a rest when I can). I mean, if I'm up by say a queen, I can afford to trade off a rook for the last of my opponent's minor pieces or a give up a piece to capture a passed pawn and hence simplify the position, making it less likely that I'll make a mistake. It's just safer that way.
If it really bothers you that much, the option to resign is always there.
I empathize with both in this situation... and overall, this discussion sounds like a chess game itself... or rather, life? hmmm.
The question I have is, as a person kind of just starting to "get it" about chess, Don't we all want to win (or lose) honorably? So which way is best to win / lose in the most honorable way?
I don't see it as honorable to resign from a game at "mate in 1" or 2. Finish the game if it's a good game and the winner is worthy of the mate.
Flip side... Why bother beating your opponent to death to the point where a funeral has no loving attendees? HA! That's not honorable. ;)
I feel a resignation is honorable "mid-game" when you may be witnessing your opponent is much better or you've made some grave mistake. Get it over with and maybe challenge same player again.
TMHO...
I love doing that. 
Piece by piece, nice and slow. Just resign if it bothers you.
blackfirestorm666 wrote:
hmmm i personally if they showed no signs of checkmating and instead goes on a pathetic "im gonna take all your pieces off the board" kind of tactic i would have resigned but i also think that a player who could mate in 2 and chooses not to instead taking all the pieces off this board then i hold very little respect for such an opponent.
To me playing chess is meant to be about pitting ones mind against another, not sitting there thinking "i can beat this guy in 2 moves but im gonna have a laugh and take all his pieces instead" thats just rude!!
I totally agree. While it's true you could have resigned, he could have checkmated too. Instead, it's like he was sort of bragging about how he beat you instead of just finishing it.
AnthonyCG wrote:
If you don't resign a lost position then you are at the complete mercy of your opponent.
Just as you are not forced to resign obviously lost positions, your opponent is not forced to win obviously won positions.
When the shoe is on the other foot, things aren't as comfortable eh?
Indeed, and one does have to come before the other...
Is lowering yourself to someone else's level really justifiable, though, simply based on the premise that you weren't the instigator?
wow i had a difficult time figuring out what you were talking about, but that's just me(i'm old school)....many would mention the "French Defense-exchange variation" lol...but i digress...just thinking outloud.........
ChessJam7 wrote:
blackfirestorm666 wrote:
hmmm i personally if they showed no signs of checkmating and instead goes on a pathetic "im gonna take all your pieces off the board" kind of tactic i would have resigned but i also think that a player who could mate in 2 and chooses not to instead taking all the pieces off this board then i hold very little respect for such an opponent.
To me playing chess is meant to be about pitting ones mind against another, not sitting there thinking "i can beat this guy in 2 moves but im gonna have a laugh and take all his pieces instead" thats just rude!!
I totally agree. While it's true you could have resigned, he could have checkmated too. Instead, it's like he was sort of bragging about how he beat you instead of just finishing it.
Enjoy the moment Why give mate in 2, then the game is over, have fun as long as possible!
I think it's fun to underpromote, give back some material, strip the board.... It's my opponents choice not to give up, and it's up to me if I want to have fun or not.
Rude? Nope, my opponent is just stupid if he let me have that fun.