resigning!

From the FAQ on blocks:

both parties (blocker and blockee) can be in the same tourney made by the third party.

I was aware of that; just not the other claim which doesn't match the blocking information.

756 - that's a numberwang! *DING*

:D someone understands! :D

I am surprised at the explanations I heared for not resigning in a totally hopeless situation: Too proud to give up; I am not a quitter (no it was not Richard Nixon); my coach told me to keep fighting.  The worst probably was "what else is there to do?" Chess, amongst other things, is a study in patience.

I think there's something to be said for recgonizing positions where you have been hopelessly defeated and conceding the game to your opponent. That doesn't mean you aren't proud of playing chess. There's no shame in losing, if you play a good game, but there certainly isn't any shame in resigning a lost position; there's no need to drag things out until the end, and it doesn't really make you a quitter if you resign.

I'm very different from anyone else, I just keep on playing until either the time runs out or I get checkmated.

This is because my #1 rule is that I NEVER resign. Even if it's King+Queen vs. Lone King, I still play on.

If you think your opponent should resign, why don't YOU resign, that's

only fair...

I think if you are in a lost position, and you believe that you have no reasonable chance of changing the result (<1/10000), you should resign. It's still your right to play on if you want, but what's the point? You're wasting your own time.

Also, you should never resign in a position where you don't understand how you're opponent will beat you. For example, if you're a true beginner, I wouldn't blame you for playing out a K+Q vs. K, because you might still get something out of seeing your opponent demonstrate a win.

When I am lost - I enjoy watching the power of my opponents pieces

unleash a mating net.  Everybody has their own measure of beauty and truth.