Opponents Who Won't Resign

Good advice. I was more curious than upset.

Baby, go play suicide if you like yo give up before checkmate! Chess isn't the right game for you if you can't understand that the aim is to checkmate, not resign

Thanks for posting the position. Fairly hopeless for white but in a game - especially if Blitz against an opponent I think might mess up - I might keep it going until the pawn promotes in the hope of stalemate, and maybe further if my opponent annoys me by encouraging me to resign :)

Also remember many people don't resign, especially if they're younger/less experienced (both due to seeing it as dishonourable and due to wanting to learn about how to finish endgames off). I resign a lot now when I'm losing but certainly didn't when I was a boy

I can see not resigning until the pawn was promoted, as one false move could end up in a stalemate. But afterwards? As I mentioned, time control was one move per day, and my opponent had been playing chess on this particular website for over 10 years.

We all agree, he has the right to play on until the bitter end. So I guess my question is, would you have played on, and if not, when would you have resigned? Personally, not knowing the skill level of my opponent, I would have waited until he successfully queened the pawn.

Here's what the board looked like after his 76th move. Perhaps he was hoping I would drop dead so he could win on time.

I guess so.

to the OP ;

i'd refrain from announcing promotion , impending doom , or anything else to your opponent , regardless of the time control or the conditions in which the game is being played.

A simple courtesy would be to keep your mouth shut until the game has ended.........

Like I said, I'd probably resign after the pawn was promoted unless my opponent was annoying me or I thought there was a chance they'd mess up/run out of time.

In a mate in 1 position like you show, I'd probably resign or - having taken it that far anyway - let my opponent checkmate me...

How do you explain that GMs, in a vast majority of circumstances, do not act like that ? Do you think chess isn't the right game for them ?
Of course they resign because that see much further than us, but nevertheless they resign, and this suggests that we'd have to resign in situations seeming obvious at our own level.

Of course there's no rule saying we should do, but after all, there's no rule either saying you should say "thanks" when the guy in the shop gives you what you have paid for. It's called respect, which isn't a concept known by everyone...
Of course bullet (even blitz sometimes) is different, though some situations don't leave any hope ; at least we know that we won't wait too much with such a time setting.

You are completely incorrect.  In an OTB open a GM might agree to resign in a lost position against another high rated IM or GM, but certainly not against a lesser player.  The stronger player always plays on to try and swindle the lesser player.  Every time I've had a success against anyone 2000+ rating and I float around 1800-1900 USCF, then they will never give me a draw/win if I am even or winning.  They will make me prove it to avoid the point loss.  There is nothing disrespectful about making your opponent prove their chess knowledge at any point in the game.  

To get under your skin that's why. And it worked.

Yeah, but I had the last laugh. I won the game.

Loubalch is a little baby. People can choose if they want to resign or not. To be honest, resigning is for those who give up, never give up and the unexpected could happen.

resign is when you are so annoyed that you cant find a move to kill time and your own time is trickling down to 0 in which you conclude ragequit is the only way out of this mental misery.

Very simple. The winning side has no right whatsoever to complain about the losing side not resigning. Resignation is optional, the game is won by mate. Respectively, the losing side has no right whatsoever to complain about the methods used to beat them by the winning side (underpromotions, artificial prolonging of the game ,etc.). They are also entitled to play as they wish ( provided the moves are legal of course ) and if you don't like it, too bad.. At the same time, I will readily admit that if I were a correspondence player, I  would feel very frustrated when my opponent would not resign in  a clearly hopeless position. Thankfully though, correspondence chess is not my thing.

I prefer shorter games, that way I can finish without soiling my nappies.

Resigning is for sissies....

I've joined this site just to comment on this thread as I am "that guy" and would like to explain myself/ask forgiveness lol.  First I mean no offense to anyone who has posted anything on this board as I feel like all of the points made on this were valid.  I can definitely see the nuisance of clearly winning and having someone make you play it out. This is why, even though I always play out every losing position (in friendly games, in a tournament where play continues I will ask my opponent if they mind.  If they don't, I play, if they do, I resign), I ALWAYS let my opponent know that I will play it out and tell them why.  I learned to play chess in a very unique set of circumstances that I won't bore you all with, but in that, I saw a great value in watching how other opponents closed games.  Even at an advanced level, decades into my chess life, I am surprised at how often someone closes me out with a completely different set of moves and positions than I was thinking.  Sure 9/10 it goes the way you'd think.  But 10% of the time, I see them do something I wasn't even thinking.  And a fraction of those times, I genuinely learn something new.  To me chess is all about progression.  The infinite beauty of the game if you would.  Personally, I want to take all opportunities of the game to see that.  And sure occasionally some.  One makes a blunder and we stalemate or I even get a win, but that's not why I play on.  I feel I also learn from the times I clearly see what they are attempting (like with a bishop/ Knight end game mate) and I like to do the unexpected and see that they still know how to close it.  So, I hope all of you out there that get mad at the "non-resigners" out there, can understand where I am coming from and accept my apologies 

That makes a lot of sense to me!  Thank you for your comment!

I'm happy to play on in an overwhelming position. I get to practice technique. By the same token I'll resign in a bad position. Internet chess is just sparring as far as I'm concerned, OTB is real chess and when things get really serious.

If I'm winning I may sub promote to knight and bishop and practice that mate

I mostly play blitz.  If I have a mate in one,  and I have more than one minute on the clock, I always wait until there is less than one second on the clock to make my move.  If my opponent  doesn't resign first, I block him.  I'm not interested in playing against Doofus.