Poor etiquette.

Some fools can't accept the fact that their position is untenable. Hope springs eternal for them for you to make that GREAT BLUNDER no matter how remote it may be.

I really hate the bravado stuff some even Masters teach to hang on till it is absolutely over and never to resign. If for one thing, it doesn't really teach stubborness or perseverance in a LOST position but simple arrogance and disrespect towards other chess players.

Good grammar, though!

1. Do you think your sentence structure may have been too complicated?
2. Your opponent's dogged draw demands almost bore fruit: if you had said something more extreme than 'hell', you might have got kicked off by the automod.

Tbh ? in this case, I would not have resigned. The mate took more moves than it should have so I would have held out for a possible stalemate.

If I were playing a player who I thought would definitely mate me, yeah I would resign.

The same player who would not mate me with a rook and king and would instead get another queen, would be just the sort to allow a possible stalemate.

Additionally, in live chess, the clock is one of the key features. If your clock is running out, and they can possibly win via time, that is a valid way to win.

I believe if you are a complete rookie then you should hang in for the learning experience. But if you've played several games on here and are at least a little seasoned, you should resign when you only have the Lone King against King, Rook, pawns, and Knight pair (which is the exact scenario of an opponent I just played; it was a tedious 79-move match).

@artfizz:  I suppose that I could have been considerate with regard to the language barrier and I may have inadvertantly offended the guy, but he understood chess well enough to know that it was over.  It really was a good game, at least for my skill level, until he made a bad move that allowed me to fork his rook and then traded down (inexplicable).  I guess it's good that I had restraint--I was mad as all...heck when he just sat there for ten minutes or so at mate in two.

@Seleucid:  agreed.  And what kind of game is it when a player makes a remarkably stupid move to kill an advantage if it's not the result of shrewd opponent tactics?  When I'm playing a friendly game face-to-face, I don't do the touch-move thing.  I'd rather allow myself or my opponent to take it back and make the best move that they can, then talk it over as a learning experience.  Most of us are patzers anyway.

At what point do you resign?  I'll usually concede the game if I'm down a rook because I think that any player worth his salt will pick me apart after that.  

True.  It did take too many moves, but I was making sure that I didn't mess it up.  Even if I made some ridiculous blunder and gave away the queen, I still had two pawns that I could have easily promoted.  I guess it's theoretically possible that a much better player than he or I could have played it to a stalemate.  But playing to a stalemate is a little different than asking repeatedly for a draw at that point, isn't it?  Neither of us are good players, obviously, but still... 

The time limit on our game was 100 minutes per person and we each had about an hour left at the point that I mated him. 

Logic doesn't generally enter into the decision whether to fight-to-end-or-be-courtious-and-resign - it's a gut reaction.

And a silly one since chess is so quintessentially logical.

Obviously giving away the queen is impossible at that point; beer and thinking about chess don't mix :)

Well as to the repeated offers of a draw when the game was lost... that would definitely be annoying! I am in total agreement on that. I didn't think about that on my first point. 

Anyway, good game. 

Different people rationalise their choice in different ways.

u a amrican!

So don't wonder :-)

I'd rather have a take back feature for complete rooks for the learning experience.  Better than playing a waste-of-time chump game (i.e. "You made a ridiculously stupid move in an otherwise pretty good game but you took your hand off the queen.")

That sucks that your opponent wouldn't resign at that point in your game.  It's as though he thought you were a lesser player even after you decisively beat him.  It strikes me as passive-aggressive.  In that instance, guy should just try to get a rematch at some point if he thinks he can beat you. 

:)

You're right.  I take full responsibility for every act of ignorance, arrogance, imperialism, and d-baggery perpetrated by the US government and its citizens, and for all the tourists from my country who make arses of themselves on foreign soil.  I should have given that guy a draw as a token of good will. 

Thanks.  I thought that he had the advantage over me even after I forked his rook.  He had control over the center of the board and I was feeling pretty constipated most of the game.  I think a good player could have beaten me in that game even after losing his rook.

I'm crashing out.  Good talking with you guys.

If you are 1056 rating then there is always a chance that you'll mess up. There is a high chance you'll somehow lose a game vs an opponent with one king and one pawn vs you with 9 queens. So your opponent did right to stay ))).

I find it really annoying and arrogant when people tell me to resign.  I've even had people tell me to resign just before they were mated.(I was down a bishop for minimal compensation when they told me to resign and promptly blundered mate in 1)

playing a 1000 player I definitely wouldn't resign if there's a chance of stalemate.

I agree with your opponent...you are American.