Resigning vs Playing it out

It takes a level of skill to keep pieces while making attacks that your opponent could blunder on. There is also a chance you just slowly win an advantage back with sound play.

I do normal resign when I have no attacking ideas and mate is nowhere close for my opponent.

I do resign, in fact, I've resigned 382 games on chess.com. I'm never going to resign when someone tries to force and pressure me into resigning.

Edit: I've been checkmated 382. It's a 50/50 shot if I lose by resigning or checkmate.

Lower-level players, including me, might as well fight it out a lot of the time. There is a chance your opponent might blunder away a winning position. But not a hard and fast rule for me. Though often when I do resign the Review says I was X moves away from checkmate, so short of an absolutely catastrophic blunder by the opponent, the game was lost.

Not to resign with no excuse with the clock, may be a "disrespect".

But if so, it's mostly a disrespect toward oneself.

Like that French streamer @Blitzstream says (the guy is who he is...) one should keep dignity in losing a game of chess.

I'll add, if that matters, that the one who is winning may also consider keeping their dignity by not complaining over a win.

At the end of the day, to each their own, and for the matter, I'm all for freedom. Beware what damages you could make to your own freedom later if you attacked too much other's freedom of acting harmlessly silly.

People are allowed to have opinions regardless of ELO and it's ridiculous to judge those opinions based merely off of ELO.

No, judging one's schess overall strenght by Elo is actually the point and purpose of the Elo rating system. Go tell the USCF and the FIDE they are ridiculous for using it, if you only dare.

And it goes without saying, that chess strenght is related to chess experience and knowledge. Hence, expertise.

Who's being ridiculous right now is you with your "don't judge" speech so totally out of place here.

I didn't explain what I meant that clearly, and I happily would tell them that if there was a reason too, I meant it would be ridiculous to judge people's opinions based on ELO.

also its strength not strenght

I do think there is some error in the current ELO rating system. I think they should have over the board ratings separate from online ratings, many people perform better in person than online, and the other way around.

Aren't they already separated?

I might be trippin but as far as I'm aware if you win in person-say its bullet-it will apply to your bullet rating on chess.com.

Ye, playing a rated bullet game on chess.com might alter your bullet rating on chess.com

What I mean is that the chess.com bullet rating shouldn't be impacted by in person games. Chess.com could track in person games separate from ones you play online.

Wat is the in person game type?

I would personally just have it as a separate categories from all the others. You have Online Bullet Rapid and Blitz, and in person Bullet Rapid and Blitz. It's a far from perfect solution but there needs to be some way to separate Online and In person performance.

You mean live over-the-board games as in person games?

Writing "ELO" in all caps automatically shows that you know nothing about it.