Opponents Who Won't Resign - Chess Forums - Page 3

TheCalculatorKid

Dec 28, 2018

0

#41

dlabtot wrote:

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.

This is such a ridiculous post. With every second you delay your move, your opponent has an increased chance of winning the game. If you're thinking about a move and the clock is running down why would anyone ever resign that position?

Ridicolous

Dec 28, 2018

0

#42

TheCalculatorKid wrote:

dlabtot wrote:

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.

This is such a ridiculous post. With every second you delay your move, your opponent has an increased chance of winning the game. If you're thinking about a move and the clock is running down why would anyone ever resign that position?

*ridicolous

dlabtot

Jan 1, 2019

0

#43

Ridicolous wrote:

TheCalculatorKid wrote:

dlabtot wrote:

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.

This is such a ridiculous post. With every second you delay your move, your opponent has an increased chance of winning the game. If you're thinking about a move and the clock is running down why would anyone ever resign that position?

*ridicolous

If I have a mate in one, his chances of winning are zero no matter what happens. I hope you think about your moves more carefully than think about what you say here.

osdeving

Jan 1, 2019

0

#44

In one of my last games I had 1:10 minutes and mate in one (Qxc7#). My opponent had 38 seconds. I think wait I make my move is crazy, that is not 'fighter player' that is the silly player or robot player following some bizarre and inflexible 'philosophy'. I did my move 0.7 seconds, and he waiting...

Ok, I can lost conectionor maybe anyting can happening and that boy can escape to loss. But, what the point in win a totally lost postion?

I dont know, in my romantic world I dont like win my opponent if he is drunk, or if he make a severe blunder in a good position (I can offer takeback!). I think win a game is more of geting the concrete results... I'm playing now and if the postion is not a good one (boring for me) I resign, I dont care about points, I want play good ches (ou try) just that...

TheCalculatorKid

Jan 2, 2019

0

#45

dlabtot wrote:

Ridicolous wrote:

TheCalculatorKid wrote:

dlabtot wrote:

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.

This is such a ridiculous post. With every second you delay your move, your opponent has an increased chance of winning the game. If you're thinking about a move and the clock is running down why would anyone ever resign that position?

*ridicolous

If I have a mate in one, his chances of winning are zero no matter what happens. I hope you think about your moves more carefully than think about what you say here.

no, if the clock hits zero your opponent then wins. every second you delay a well earnt mate is a second your opponent has a greater chance of victory.

crimson_order

Jan 2, 2019

0

#46

Fair Play Policy

Chess.com encourages players to be kind and show good sportsmanship. Our Fair Play policy expects that players will not...

intentionally disconnect during games
stall to make opponents wait unnecessarily
frivolously abort games because they don't want to play black, etc. (Note that we have now implemented a limit on the frequency with which users may abort games; please Abort only when necessary. Also see below.)

Your 'tactics' are against the site rules.

LouStule

Jan 2, 2019

0

#47

I played a guy the other day who was one move away from checkmate. He drug it out for days and then made his last move and THEN resigned, denying me the satisfaction of actually checkmating him. I’m in another game with him now and it looks like he’s gonna try the same thing but this time I’m gonna OUTSMART him him by premoving the checkmate!! Clever huh?

TheCalculatorKid

Jan 2, 2019

0

#48

LouStule wrote:

I played a guy the other day who was one move away from checkmate. He drug it out for days and then made his last move and THEN resigned, denying me the satisfaction of actually checkmating him. I’m in another game with him now and it looks like he’s gonna try the same thing but this time I’m gonna OUTSMART him him by premoving the checkmate!! Clever huh?

either way you've won both games so who's the real winner in the story, right?

NM Impractical

Jan 2, 2019

0

#49

Frank Marshall is famous for saying, "No one ever managed to win a chess game by resigning." If you deride people for trying to "swindle" a stalemate or set a trap from a lost position, lots of interesting chess would be lost. My vote on this issue is just not to take up an offense when someone plays on--it's chess one way or the other

TheCalculatorKid

Jan 2, 2019

0

#50

loubalch wrote:

I understand playing on in a losing position when you think your opponent might make a blunder. But when you're up a king and pawn versus a lone king, and announce that you have a force promotion in 5 moves, why (other than spite) would anybody play on?

But wait, that's not all. A couple of moves after queening, I announce a forced mate in 3, no resignation. Next move, I announce a forced mate in 2, no resignation. Next move, I announce a forced mate in 1 move, no response (I'm still waiting. It's been a couple of hours). Am I off base here? I thought it was common courtesy in these circumstances to simply resign?

Addendum: He dragged it out to the bitter end. For what purpose, it baffles me.

Yes you are incredibly off base. it's a players right to make chessmoves until check mate or stale mate occurs. Both in the hope you blunder and they can win and in the quest to learn how to finish a particular sequence. Demanding a resignation is actually bad manners on your part so yes, you are off base here.

stiggling

Jan 2, 2019

0

#51

Impractical wrote:

Frank Marshall is famous for saying, "No one ever managed to win a chess game by resigning." If you deride people for trying to "swindle" a stalemate or set a trap from a lost position, lots of interesting chess would be lost. My vote on this issue is just not to take up an offense when someone plays on--it's chess one way or the other

I haven't read this topic except for this post.

I'd just say, playing on is fine, it's playing on slowly that's annoying.

In a tournament there's not a lot of time between rounds, so if my opponent wants to screw around for 30 minutes when I'm up a queen and they have no counter play they can fuck off, I want a sandwich.

OPTipping

Jan 2, 2019

0

#52

(Shrugs) This sounds like the kind of thing that shouldn't bother you. You have to expect that you'll need to get checkmate in order to win a game.

GregThePianoTuner

Sep 11, 2021

0

#53

I never resign. Right now I'm at move #50 in a correspondence game; I have only my King, and my opponent has his King, a Queened pawn, and three other pawns. I want to make my opponent earn the game; why not? I'd expect the other guy to do the same.

Immaculate_Slayer

Sep 12, 2021

0

#54

You have the photo of a monkey playing chess.

NM Impractical

Sep 12, 2021

0

#55

Immaculate, that is because computers have made monkeys of us all

assassin3752

Sep 12, 2021

0

#56

loubalch wrote:

I understand playing on in a losing position when you think your opponent might make a blunder. But when you're up a king and pawn versus a lone king, and announce that you have a force promotion in 5 moves, why (other than spite) would anybody play on?

But wait, that's not all. A couple of moves after queening, I announce a forced mate in 3, no resignation. Next move, I announce a forced mate in 2, no resignation. Next move, I announce a forced mate in 1 move, no response (I'm still waiting. It's been a couple of hours). Am I off base here? I thought it was common courtesy in these circumstances to simply resign?

Addendum: He dragged it out to the bitter end. For what purpose, it baffles me.

If you ever get an opponent like that, then the simplest way to finish him off is to troll him