pinapplebrainDerek wrote:
I'm with you hawkinspal. If you wait you might win on time.
I'd buy that if the person had a high timeout %. If their timeout % is very low, then it doesn't make much logical sense to continue playing soley because of the possibility of a timeout.
I have no problem with a beginner not resigning a hopeless position if they want to see the technique. I have no problem with anyone not resigning if a stalemate is a reasonable possibility, e.g. only King moves possible. But why stay in a game like one I have going right now, where for 10 or more moves, I'm up a Q, a R, two minor pieces and a pawn?
We are playing along, moving every couple of minutes until I have a mate in 1. My opponent leaves and is apparently going to wait 3 days. This is bad form.
I will not replay games with these types.
OTO, when I have an overwhelming advantage with a beginner, I have no problem with telling them my strategy to convert to a win. They can watch the technique and learn, or resign. I have no problem either way.
I wouldn't resign, and I don't find any dishonnor in a stalemate because of my opponents blunder. If I blundered, and effectively put myself in a losing situation, then my opponent does the same, why should I feel guilty for not having lost outright? We both made mistakes, I just made the first one. That doesn't automatically mean that I'm the weaker player. Mistakes happen. Winning on time is another issue...I haven't won on time in a game that was hopelessly lost to me, but I have won on time in games that I feel I had the upper hand.
I think of resigning as a Captain of a ship who says to his crew " Yes, I know I'm to go down with the ship but I think I will climb in the boat with the women and children just to be sure their safe." Very noble don't you think.
Gee, I always wonder what the USCF Rule book has to say on this subject....too bad that peoples opinion is always in the way of what the rules might say...
When you have 20 or more games going on, you don't want to be distracted by an obviously lost position. It's not worth playing out a lost game to the bitter end if it causes you to lose other games that you might have won. I'd rather take a win in another game than a stalemate in a game I should have lost.
Trying to avoid inevitable mate to win on time doesn't make you any better at chess - in fact, you could spend that time playing a real game of chess instead.
I'm not certain that it's even the consensus opinion, but I'd rather increase my rating by becoming better at chess, as opposed to winning or drawing games due to time constraint.
Pineapple you don't have a chess coch. Do you have nothing better to do than make up threads?
I am a stronger Black player than White so I decided to try a different opening. As you will see, I blundered early on and things went horribly wrong. Now some say proper etiquette is to resign because clearly I was going to lose. My thought is this: if a blunder caused me to be material down, couldn't my opponent blunder just as easily? Here is a game I just won this evening. NOTE: this is not a puzzle! Click "Solution" and hit the "P" to watch the game unfold.
I think there is more to learn from the game by not resigning. And in this case, my opponent learned that even though he/she had an HUGE advantage in material, it's not time to get overconfident and careless. I can not believe I won this game.
dean, I lost interest after you didn't play Bb5 on move 7....
dean, I lost interest after you didn't play Bb5 on move 7....
I completely agree I blundered - how could I not have seen that???
Yet there were probably a thousand ways this opponent could have beaten me.
The point I'm making is this: if I can blunder a winning position and get into a losing position, then my opponent can blunder away his winning position.
Some suggest it is rude or poor etiquette not to resign (I was down a Rook and Knight) but I think this game proves my point brilliantly: if I want to continue to struggle to survive and the other player is confident he can win, then let him do so. I get to learn from his tactics. However in this case my opponent learned not to get careless and I learned not to give up. 
"great satisfaction in a stalemate as a result of opponent’s blunder"
this is an invalid statement as the other opponent is in the winning position due to a blunder. so if you resign without trying to win your opponent will have a satisfation winning as a result of a blunder.
people make mistake in chess as we are not computers.
some chessplayers want the game to be without errors but it is what makes it a human game.
and players should win if they are in a winning position otherwise it was correct to play on.
I play on if I have a plan for draw.
I play on if I am down material and my opponent hasn't activated his pieces so I basically even.
by the way I think the best way to play an opponent who doesn't resing is to play very slow. not trying to push a win. I mate my opponent the slowest way possible because this usually avoid stalemates. playing against chessmaster 11 which never resigns I learned to do that.
No Bobby the best way is to checkmate them efficiently and simply with heavy pieces and then go home.
I will ususally resign if my opponent is demonstrating that he/she knows how to win the game.
If I have a won game - from my point of view - I will proceed to play on to checkmate or my opponent resigns. If I suspect my opponent is attempting to try for a stalemate or is just being "difficult", I will press my advantage and get another Queen. Most people resign after that.
i like to stuggle for stalemate at times when my opponent is on top but can't drive with his/her king for instance
The point I'm making is this: if I can blunder a winning position and get into a losing position, then my opponent can blunder away his winning position.
Some suggest it is rude or poor etiquette not to resign (I was down a Rook and Knight) but I think this game proves my point brilliantly: if I want to continue to struggle to survive and the other player is confident he can win, then let him do so. I get to learn from his tactics. However in this case my opponent learned not to get careless and I learned not to give up.
Well, I think that with queens still on-board, and/or if you are in the middle of attack, of course that you wouldn't resign because you still have some chance to win/draw.So your game is probably not a best showcase for the "resign/not resign" discussion.
haha this one time in the australian junior championships this kid who was like 1800 just wouldn't resign....so i took all his pieces then promoted all my pawns to knights trapped his king to 2 squares jumped around for 34 moves while there were about 40 different mates then checkmated him the move before 50move rule :) its fair to say he was angry
I saw. I'm skeptical, but I'm still going to watch it when it hits Canada.