I believe this Chess discussion is misunderstood, it's not about a piece up, but getting a huge advantage and the opponent still plays. I think you should resign unless there is a stalemate trick, if there isn't one, then you are wasting the time of both players.
Nobody resigns
Sort:
Personally, I hate those people more who blunder and then stall. Always report them.
Can anyone tell me how to quote??
☻☻☻
Oh thanks
In my opinion resignation is for WIMPS.Period!
re #20 am pleased to note that little ****** has closed their account.👎
Aug 24, 2020
0
#108
Witkrag wrote:
In my opinion resignation is for WIMPS.Period!
re #20 am pleased to note that little ****** has closed their account.👎
@thelmposter is one of those people that make multiple accounts. He'll probably be back.
Aug 24, 2020
0
#109
Witkrag wrote:
In my opinion resignation is for WIMPS.Period!
I suppose that would make all grandmasters wimps when resigning because they like to save their energy for the next game, no?
faaagamer wrote:
I think at lower ratings, it is fair if they don't resign and wait for you to checkmate them as they have a fair chance of drawing by stalemate. The other winning side can take precaution and mate the player. Although, I agree it is a waste of time and players can resign if they have M3 or something like that. It until you get to the titled players you should resign (when having a good material disadvantage) and not play until mate, if you think there are no drawing chances, as they are generally very experienced and do not fall for stalemates and repetitive checks. (I do☻)
I believe that you cannot blame players for not resigning, its just that they're wasting time of both. Still, we can't blame them until you reach a reasonable rating (don't ask me ☻) and people will automatically resign unless there is a hard endgame or it is a draw.
SNUDOO wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
I'm sure for every example like that you could post 10 examples of playing on and losing too. An odd example is always easy to find!
yes, I believe the chances of stalemate in a losing position vs. the chances of losing in a lost position would be about 1 in every 15 games.
That came up in another topic some time ago. I believe it's more like one out of twenty, but it could be closer to 15. I know it happens to me often enough to keep playing on, especially in positions where the opponent has many pieces and my king is the only movable piece.
Aug 24, 2020
0
#112
lfPatriotGames wrote:
SNUDOO wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
I'm sure for every example like that you could post 10 examples of playing on and losing too. An odd example is always easy to find!
yes, I believe the chances of stalemate in a losing position vs. the chances of losing in a lost position would be about 1 in every 15 games.
That came up in another topic some time ago. I believe it's more like one out of twenty, but it could be closer to 15. I know it happens to me often enough to keep playing on, especially in positions where the opponent has many pieces and my king is the only movable piece.
Yes, so my point is that it would save both players' time, because if you're losing chances are you're gonna lose. If the stakes are high then play on by all means (I would too) but in normal online games, I feel like it would be more rational to just resign, analyze, and play another game.
SNUDOO wrote:
Yes, so my point is that it would save both players' time, because if you're losing chances are you're gonna lose. If the stakes are high then play on by all means (I would too) but in normal online games, I feel like it would be more rational to just resign, analyze, and play another game.
But the absolute need to win is irrational, so this debate will go on forever.
Calculator already lost this debate a while ago when he posted his own thread on it. It covers all the BS people are bringing up again now, like the mistaken notion that chess is the only game with etiquette for conceding.
Aug 24, 2020
0
#114
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
Here's another example, again no time pressure. But I blundered so figured there's every chance my opponent blunders as well, and they did. And it's a draw.
That was much more likely to be a misclick than a blunder and you were a very poor sport for not resigning that down a queen with only your king left.
Aug 24, 2020
0
#115
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
@osfan37 what you are failing to realise is, you are complaining at someone for not resigning a lost position when you yourself didn't resign a lost position lol.
I said a hopeless position, not a position that’s theoretically lost but still perfectly playable which mine was. Again, I’m talking down at least 10 points worth of material With no compensation in an endgame.
TumpaiTubo wrote:
People need to take a step back and ask “why.” Why are some people in such a hurry for a game to be over, so they can move onto the next game? Why not live for the moment and enjoy the interaction with others? In what other game or sport do people quit when they fall behind? Some games and sports have rules that call the game over at a certain disadvantage, but ending a game due to a rule is not the same as quitting.
Why are some Chess people quitters?
I understand there is a rule in Chess that allows a person to quit, and I understand that rule in context to games that are many hours or days in length. I do not understand exercising that rule in Blitz or Rapid length games.
I think because ego is more of a factor in chess vs other games, or even sports. In sports physical ability plays a much more important role. In chess, it's just brain power. So when someone loses, or is losing, at chess their ego is hurt. So they quit rather than play til the end. It's rare to see so much quitting in either games OR sports. Quitting is almost always bad sportsmanship, although there are some exceptions like you mentioned.
We all are used to seeing competitors go until the bitter end, even if they know they will finish last. The foot race where the person in last place pushes themselves to their limit, just to finish last. They would rather do that than quit.
Imagine the chess mentality in a footrace. A field of 12 competitors racing to the finish line, nobody has crossed yet but the person in 10th place just stops and walks off to the side because they know their position is hopeless or "lost". That way they can save their energy for the next race.
As I said, same old points, same players, all refuted last time around.
never resign op is stupid
u have to play on opponent can blunder
Wandering_zombie wrote:
can't understand people desperately playing on in hopeless positions in the slim hope the opponent blunders, just to salvage a few measly points. I'd rather start a new game and accept defeat graciously, and try to learn from the mistakes of my last game.
You dont have to understand it. I'll bet there are other things about people that you might not understand either. People are different. They have different goals, wants, desires, etc. We are not all the same. That why NOBODY will ever totally understand everyone else.
If you want to resign and start a new game, you should. If other people would rather play on and try for a draw or win, they should. Neither are right or wrong.
Aug 24, 2020
0
#120
Wandering_zombie wrote:
can't understand people desperately playing on in hopeless positions in the slim hope the opponent blunders, just to salvage a few measly points. I'd rather start a new game and accept defeat graciously, and try to learn from the mistakes of my last game.
wow whose brain did you get
I'm sure for every example like that you could post 10 examples of playing on and losing too. An odd example is always easy to find!
yes, I believe the chances of stalemate in a losing position vs. the chances of losing in a lost position would be about 1 in every 15 games.