13095 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Chess is a psychological game as well as a logical game. The choice to resign is up to the person resigning. If you feel there is a reason to play on you should play on. The opponent has no right to dictate to you. If he is getting annoyed that is his problem, not yours. Sometimes the fact that he is annoyed can be exploited your advantage. When people get emotional they are more likely to make mistakes.
Resignation is an out for the losing player. It allows him to save time and energy in a probable lost cause. In no way whatever does the losing player owe the opponent a resignation. All you owe your opponent is your best honest effort, i.e. try your best, but don't cheat.
I respect my opponent's right to play on to checkmate. I sometimes feel he is wasting his time and mine but that is my issue, not his. When they play out to mate it gives you a chance to practice checkmating techniques. I even lose respect for a player who resigns too easily, or because he is intimidated by my rating. Chess is a battle and if you are not ready to do battle perhaps the game is not for you.
I'm sure some people will try to twist my words to their own meanings, as they have already but if you have some common sense I think you will understand what I am saying.
Honestly, I don't understand the chess.com correspondence chess argument. I can not imagine a more painless feeling than finishing up a game in which you could find the moves with your eyes closed. Why not just think of the game that will take 30 days to finish as a game that "You haven't yet won, but almost certainly will." I don't know, to me that would feel like I won anyway (unless of course I eventually screw up ; but I will assume that won't happen if it's very unlikely). Someone who makes me take 6 months to finish off a "totally won game"... does not cause me pain in the slightest. If I am not interested in the current position where I am up two queens, then I can simply remember the parts of the game that were more interesting.
The only slight problem is perhaps that a game taking longer would mean more time before you could go over the game. Of course it could be argued that if the game lasts 80 moves for example, it wouldn't hurt to go over the first 20 moves or something. It's unlikely it would affect the last portion of the game, and even if it somehow did I would understand. Besides, even if you didn't go over that game until it finished, it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be other games you finished, or even master games, that you could analyze in the meantime.
Hypothetically, maybe in some scenario it's in my best interest that my opponent resigns as it helps me go over the game more quickly. But it's not about what I think. I would never ask a person to live under the same values as me if the only justification I used for it was "because they are my values." If playing on in some lopsided position doesn't feel like a waste of time to you, who am I to tell you it is? I can only say if it's a waste to me; I can't say it's a waste to you if you find it productive. It's like telling someone whose favorite ice cream is chocolate, that it's actually not their favorite flavor.
And of course, whether that post was clear or not depends on the individual too. To me it all seemed clear, but that's probably because it's my own post. To others, they might not have known what I meant. If it's not clear I could try to clarify parts of it.
I don't care if someone doesn't resign my game, but it is rather annoying when it takes 5 months longer for the next round to start in a tournament because 1 game is left at 14 days / move where the player is down a queen in another game and won't resign.
yeah Im playing someone about 100 points higher rated right now and he just has his king and I have king + Queen... annoying but If he wants to play to mate, then I will oblige.
When an opponent who does not resign with only a K against an overwhelming material superiority and there is a minute or more left on the clock, it provides the challenge of promoting as many pawns as one can without stalemating the opponent.
With less than a minute left on the clock, having 2 queens makes it much easier to mate a lone K.
Yes in my personal case I would resign more quickly if it were a correspondence tournament, as it affects a larger amount of people than my opponent and I.
Nonetheless, I am generally uncomfortable with telling other people what their perfect resignation time is as I feel like it's, frankly, none of my business. I generally don't like saying how someone ought to spend their time even if it might seem unreasonable to me personally.
If the person playing on simply values that .000000001% chance, and is not trying to waste the time of others, then I still respect that. I guess that's impractical -- I don't know -- it's like my genes don't allow me to interfere with or even judge personal decisions that do not belong to me.
Then again, maybe I'm only saying what I'm saying because there isn't money on the line for those tournaments -- in "real" correspondence tournaments, the issue would of course be more serious.
Sigh... I don't know -- I still just don't feel like judging. Look, one would be an idiot to try to make a living off of correspondence chess tournaments in the first place -- go into it realizing that there is the potential for it to take a really, really, long time. If it ends more quickly than you thought, great, but don't count on it.
Besides, if a person is willing to play a game of chess that takes years, I would be surprised that they wouldn't be prepared to wait extremely long periods of time with only slow progression in the game.
I understand that someone might not want to resign in live chess, hoping that the opponent will run out of time, but if someone has only a king left in an "online chess" game, he doesn't resign and he stops playing, so I have to wait two days before he makes a move, that's just a pure stupidity in my opinion.
maybe waiting to see if you get banned .. lol
I said someone.... just theoretically, i didn't offend anyone in particular :)
wohhh, calm down.
I've won many games when I thought it was hopeless to go on. People make bad mistakes when they thought they have already won. I would never drag out a losing situation for days,these were live games.
I am a little tired of this forum. Can someone tell me how to leave?
After the last comment and before you post your reply, there's a box that says "Tracking comments!" Check that off.
Thanks a lot, SmyslovFan! Never give up discussing? Actually I do now. See you guys.
This is very annoying in online chess. I'm currently playing some games where the outcome is NID, i could maybe draw these games if it was a blitz game with 20 sec remaining on my side but in online it is just pointless to play further. Nevertheless, my opponent keeps playing these absolute dead lost positions. I would even win these games blindfolded against Houdini.
Luckily, he doesn't spend 3 days to move because in this case these games could continue for months..
Still,i don't see the point, really.
castling should be banned, explanation inside
by kaynight a few minutes ago
Was Alekhine assassinated?
by uscftigerprowl a few minutes ago
People deliberately running out the clock instead of resigning
by its_only_me 2 minutes ago
2/12/2016 - Corner Pocket
by panyucheng 6 minutes ago
Can you help me analyzing these games? I'm rated abot 1350
by Vikkelsoe 8 minutes ago
why its so difficult to playing chess here?
by Caedrel 9 minutes ago
by watcha 10 minutes ago
by kareldevries 11 minutes ago
Did "Rapid Chess Improvement" by Michael de la Maza work for you?
by yyoochess 14 minutes ago
GOOD PLAYERS PLEASE ANALYSE THIS GAME
by vishnudathvd 14 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!