Lack of Respect?
Sort:
You've got me. Were I Black, I would have resigned immediately after making my 37th move. Maybe he was dazed by it and they finished the rest of the game on line in real time. I dunno.
I don't think it's too important. However, it is possible that white may have taunted black at some point and this is causing him to play on out of spite.
let's not be so full of ourselves that we are insulted if our opponent doesn't resign if we think that his position is hopeless. This is arrogance to the extreme. I do not want to hear people complain how they feel insulting because their opponent want to continue playing chess. I am not saying any of you suggested this, but it does annoy me greatly when someone acts that way. Sorry if i offended anybody.
If black wants to continue playing the game, it is his right. There really are no more factors involved.
Jul 11, 2008
0
#6
If I was playing black I resigned and challenged my opponent again or continued my other games. When I am playing white I think "why doesn't he resign" but I would not ask it, because knowing when your game is over should be something you learn yourself, that should not be teached or be decided by others.
I certainly agree that while I may absently wonder why the other guy isn't resigning, I certainly don't want to say anything (to anybody) about it, nor get upset by it either. There are so many reasons this happens: He could be new to tournament chess and just not realize that he maybe could consider resigning; he might want to get into an endgame just for the practice; he might not think I'm as good a player as I think I am (Hah!) and is hoping I blunder (Never!), or he may want to try pulling out a draw by a forced stalemate, or use of a defensive zugzwang, or . . . ? In any case, when an opponent elects to play on, I don't take it personally.
Jul 11, 2008
0
#8
This is one of those unspoken conversations that go on during a game. Many people consider it impolite to not resign when you are dead lost. But even more people consider it impolite to ask the other player to resign (personally I think this behavior is ridiculous).
So if one player hangs a rook, say, and only gets 2 pawns and a couple of tempi in compensation, the other player will continue playing, maybe they are even chatting during the game, but they shouldn't actually discuss the material imbalance.
I had a game once where I kept playing even after I knew I was dead lost for several reasons.
1. We were having a good conversation, and let's face it, it ends when you end the game.
2. I suspected my opponent of computer assistance and wanted more "data" if you will. Computers and humans have a noticeably different style when it comes to "wrapping things up".
3. My opponent was cute. :-)
let's not be so full of ourselves that we are insulted if our opponent doesn't resign if we think that his position is hopeless. This is arrogance to the extreme.
If black wants to continue playing the game, it is his right. There really are no more factors involved.
Two queens vs a king is not "arrogance in the extreme" -- playing on in such a position is some combination of idiocy and ill-manners unless these guys are friends having a laugh, or there's a side bet (I can mate you in under 60 moves or some such) -- no one questions the "right" to play on -- but a right doesn't mean it's good practice. I have the RIGHT to wear my underpants on the outside, and to smear myself with mayonaise, it's my right, and it's also it's my right to speak in an angry snarling manner at everyone I meet! Being idiotic or rude isn't illegal... but they remain rude and idiotic despite the legality. There are social conventions we generally obey, and these conventions increase our sense citizenly goodfellowship. We agree -- -it's pleasanter without the mayonaise-covered people snarling in the street (I live in NYC, so one does encounter these folks from time to time, though).
Refusal to resign in correspondence chess in particular is just "not how it's done" as the British say. And the British are world recognized authorities on correct behavior in all things ;)
*Edit* Oh. Ozzie gave extenuating circumstances... you know, given the ratings of the players involved it the Q+Q vs K linked game... I'd be really surprised if there weren't some extenuating circumstance.
nimbleswitch wrote:
Anyway, a guy once told me that he like to "punish" opponents who wouldn't resign by intentionally toying with them--giving lots of checks and chasing them around the board, passing up lots of mates in the process.
This seems counterproductive. Giving the losing side a reason to believe you don't know how to mate isn't going to make them resign any sooner. In a tournament I am all business, but in internet blitz I'll occasionally underpromote pawns when winning. This should send the message "I am so confident in winning this game, I barely need to try."
Why do so many people care what other players do? Worry about yourselves and get on with your lives.
JG27Pyth wrote:
let's not be so full of ourselves that we are insulted if our opponent doesn't resign if we think that his position is hopeless. This is arrogance to the extreme.
If black wants to continue playing the game, it is his right. There really are no more factors involved.
Two queens vs a king is not "arrogance in the extreme" -- playing on in such a position is some combination of idiocy and ill-manners unless these guys are friends having a laugh, or there's a side bet (I can mate you in under 60 moves or some such) -- no one questions the "right" to play on -- but a right doesn't mean it's good practice. I have the RIGHT to wear my underpants on the outside, and to smear myself with mayonaise, it's my right, and it's also it's my right to speak in an angry snarling manner at everyone I meet! Being idiotic or rude isn't illegal... but they remain rude and idiotic despite the legality. There are social conventions we generally obey, and these conventions increase our sense citizenly goodfellowship. We agree -- -it's pleasanter without the mayonaise-covered people snarling in the street (I live in NYC, so one does encounter these folks from time to time, though).
Refusal to resign in correspondence chess in particular is just "not how it's done" as the British say. And the British are world recognized authorities on correct behavior in all things ;)
*Edit* Oh. Ozzie gave extenuating circumstances... you know, given the ratings of the players involved it the Q+Q vs K linked game... I'd be really surprised if there weren't some extenuating circumstance.
that post proved my point. It just OOZES of arrogance and self-importance. I play chess because I think its fun, i am sorry your royal highness is insulted by my behavior if I, or anyone else, chooses not to resign when your grace deems it is foolish to keep playing.
I am not saying I wouldn't resign, for certainly I would. But it is the individual players decision and any chose is A-ok.
Sorry but I don't think they should be called "idiotic" for playing on. If you're so helpless that you can't quickly mate his king with your two queens, then perhaps you shouldn't be so arrogant and insist on their resignation, but rather work on your finishing technique. The game isn't over just because you're ahead or behind in material.
I don't think its wrong to be optimistic and play out an entire game. One never knows what the outcome may be. If I had two queens against a king, I would think it pointless for my opponent to carry on and would hope for a resignation to save my time. However, I would never ask for one. If one happens to enjoy such an advantage, it would be a lot healthier if the matter is taken positively and he/she should take joy in closing out the game. Shouldn't take long in such a situation.
That's my two pence on the matter.
When people do not resign ridiculous positions against me I simply ask them why? I ask what do they expect from the position? A draw? A win? Do they really think I will allow a stalemate? Regardless of their answers I never play them again. Its my choice/right not to just as its theirs to play out ridiculous positions.
Lets be honest you have to wrap up games that are won i dont mind what i do mind is
You offer a draw in an equal postion you get no response and then later after your opponent makes a horrible blunder they accept your draw
eg
draco, they only get one move to accept the draw. If you offer a draw, once they move they have declined the draw and they do not have the option to accept a draw until you offer another one.
Jul 11, 2008
0
#18
If your opponent is unaware that his position is lost, the onus is on you to demostrate why it is lost...if you cannot do this, then what are you complaining about...if you CAN do this, then do it in a friendly manner and think of it as a lesson for them...besides, you might screw it up 
this topic never gets old
really
Just saw this game in the top rated section:
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=7115297
Given the high rating of both players (around 2500), what is Black thinking? A kid could win this game at this point without an accidental stalemate.
I personally don't care, but I've seen plenty of comments where people insist that good players resign when all is lost, or else they show disrepsect to their opponent.