At the low level that I play:
1) A person had best prove that they can checkmate me.
2) If a person has bested me, they deserve the satisfaction of delivering checkmate.
My Opinion About Resignation
Sort:
blueemu wrote:
My own rule-of-thumb is that if I can already clearly see how I would win this game if I were in my opponent's shoes, then I'll resign.
This works with players who are experienced in the game. Low rated players have bad judgment and a very hazy understanding of chess. A low rated player should just never resign, it's a much safer approach.
badger_song wrote:
Bartman, knowing when to quit and apply one's resources to something else is the most under appreciated skill people can possess. Societies like to celebrate the victor who won against long odds, consumed by an all encompassing need for finale victory. Yet what isn't mentioned is the cost the victor pays for doing so, for everyone who never gives up and finds a path to victory, there are legions of those who were destroyed by their obsession, without coming anywhere close to success. There is nuance in this topic, but as a general rule, those who claim winning is the only thing that matters and quitters are cowards lack the ability to judge what is gained by what is lost. I don't just disagree with Bartman, I think he's dangerously delusional and lacks the judgement necessary for any real responsibility; other than that he's probably ok.
Who is the dangerously delusional person: the person who shares an opinion about a board game that is somewhat controversial or the person who decides from one opinion that someone "lacks the judgement necessary for any real responsibility". This is political correctness at its worst.
Just_here_forthe_endgames: I agree with you: this is political correctness at the worst. Furthermore I'm not going to apologize by not biting my tongue to express how I feel about resignation. In fact if I want to be checkmated then that's my right and decision to be checkmated.
Badger_song: You got a point there.