Well stated, AnthonyCG
Refusing to resign...
Sort:
*jumps on table* "WHY MUST I LOSE TO THIS IDIOT!" 
Oct 20, 2009
0
#24
It never bothers me when an opponent refuses to resign. I admire one who fights tooth-and-nail in the face of defeat.
From my experience, there is no lack of early resigners in the world, or on this site. I wish more would stick around for punsishment.
Oct 20, 2009
0
#25
My rating here is 1800+, and I think it would be nice if the ratings of the people posting was displayed here somewhere. I think it's interesting to see how people's playing strength influences (or perhaps doesn't influence) their opinons.
I agree with the idea that weaker players should play on in order to learn from the inevitable mating attacks that will occur in a lost game. Personally I'm not bothered when a fish doesn't resign because I figure they don't have enough experiance to know that there is no hope. Most of us have played people who thought they were good because they could beat all there friends or family but who in reality are extremely weak. There are a lot of players like that here.
What bothers me more is a game like Rooperi's. Rooperi is a decent player (1600ish) but here we have a very good player (1900ish) who is busted who just keeps pushing wood till he's back rank mated. To me this just seems absurd. Of course people have the right to play till mate, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. To me it reeks of poor sportsmanship and lack of respect for the opponent and the game. Must my opinion.
there is a song that goes "know when to hold them,know when to fold them,"
at last some that loves chess and knows country western,thank-you.
Oct 21, 2009
0
#29
dannyhume wrote:
I have drawn 3 games with an overwhelmingly lost position (Like Q + R + B against my K)...I am sorry, but I am not entirely convinced a <1400 may not fall for a stalemate even though it should be easy enough to avoid.
In one game, I blatantly placed my last piece (rook) next to a 1300-1400 player's king (he also had multiple other pieces and pawns to my lone R) and he just took it! Against an 1800+ player, I typically resign but <1400, there is a chance I may draw with such an overwhelmingly lost position.
I follow a similar philosophy when it comes to resigning. I take into account the position (if there's a possible draw and the likelihood of such occurance) and the opponent's rating. If I feel like I'm wasting my opponent's time I WILL resign. e.g. a simple R+K endgame some 1300s might not know how to mate with a single rook.
This is one I played recently. The point is - the board was too complicated to resign and I felt like I still had some play left. The final result was a draw. Chess960 game. Opponent rated 1500ish.
Oct 21, 2009
0
#30
In online chess my feeling is that if a position is clearly lost then resignation is called for, but i also play a lot of bullet chess where, because of the time limitation i suppose one can say that a clearly lost position is never clearly lost !! I have won many games a piece or two down, and lost many where I have had a clear material advantage. If a players actions upset one, for whatever reason simply dont play them again.
I would have to agree with the member who posted before (Can't be bothered to look for the exactpost!) who feels that beginners should not resign.
If I am losing due to massive error on my behalf, I will tend to resign, to save myself the embarrasment of being hung!
But if I am losing to a far better player, I will let the game go, to see the end game. I'm not a very good player, and lose often, so it good for me to see the patterns that often appear at the end of the game. I have managed to get a game or so to a draw, by knowing my endgame and playing around it.
In OTB tournaments I have rarely seen a 1600+ play til the last move. This is the only stage that would be at risk IMHO...Honestly are you afraid you won't find something to do with your life if an online game lasts too long?
At the end of the day, and at the end of this thread (if it ever does end) - The rules are the rules and define the end of the game clearly. Imagine the chaos of declaring "Inevitable Checkmate!!" and frolicking over to the board to record your win =P
Oct 25, 2009
0
#33
I refuse to resign!
Unless... I become so utterly disgusted with my performance I walk away to beat myself about the head.
Oct 25, 2009
0
#34
"Inevitable Checkmate!!"
HAHA! Very good!
That reminds me, I read in a chess book that before the Queen's moves were altered, they had to call "Rook checks".
Can you imagine?
I wish it wasn't 'bad manners' to not resign. I find it enjoyable to play a game till the end whether I'm winning or losing. Even if I see that I could be mated in 3 moves, I like to play it out - why not - isn't it enjoyable to checkmate your opponent?
I'm not playing only to 'improve my ratings', usually just to relax after a long day at work. Maybe if people feel so strongly about it there should be an additional preference 'i don't resign', so that someone can choose not to play you.
"Moo moo moo moo moo moo moo moo.....", said the cow. (which was slightly more interesting to listen to than another forum about non-resigning stupid heads and how they make us stomp our feet.) Moo
Oct 25, 2009
0
#37
Bad manners isn't so much in not resigning, but demanding your opponent resign, calling them names such as cows and stupid heads, as well as childishly stomping your feet.
My opponents may do whatever they wish so long as it is within the legal limits of the law of the land and the game—bad manners and immaturity are chichi in the postmodern age.
If you wish to interact with humans, you must find a way to cope. Gentlemanly and Lady-like behavior are rewarded in society with friendship and respect.
Friendship however, is overrated, unless of course it rewards yourself with caste promotion.
However, I wish to cross no bourgeois bridges, as they are riddled with snakes and trolls...
May 13, 2010
0
#38
polydiatonic wrote:
My rating here is 1800+, and I think it would be nice if the ratings of the people posting was displayed here somewhere. I think it's interesting to see how people's playing strength influences (or perhaps doesn't influence) their opinons.
...
IF you hover over the poster's name, a mouseover (pop-up display) shows you some background info - including their rating. e.g.
polydiatonic 
Last Online: 5/12/2010 1:57pm
Rating: 1820 (Live Chess - Blitz)
Current Games: 0 (0% timeouts)
Interestingly, this is their rating now when you are reading their post - not their rating when they wrote it.
Feb 4, 2021
0
#39
I refuse to resign all the time because of 3 reasons: 1) I am extremely stubborn, 2) I rather keep on playing until I got checkmated or a stalemate, 3) I usually show no respect to my opponents. That is just my only humble opinion. Nothing else.
I may be showing my age, but it used to be considered bad form (translated rude) for a player to encourage his opponent to resign. You'd never see such behavior in a face to face chess game/match. Methinks the anonymity of online chess encourages such forward (rude) behavior ... while I understand the aggravation of the player who has the upper hand in a game, to allow that aggravation to turn into a berating or verabally encouraging an opponent's resignation is classless ... the sport of chess deserves better than this ... and more of a return to civility in spite of the anonymity afforded by online chess.