Survey: How do you treat non-resigners?

Sort:
IshVarLan

Poison .. A Classic that's NEVER truly out of style

IshVarLan
El_Senior wrote:
Teary_Oberon wrote:

There is no such thing as using time 'effectively' when the position is hopelessly lost--there is only time wasting.

Also, reducing the time per move is not always an option due to personal schedules and/or uncontrollable tournament rules.


There's a difference between "hopelessly lost" and checkmate (or stalemate or 50 move rule or three fold repetition or winning on time before your opponent can checkmate you). 

No player is obligated by the rules of chess to resign, ever. Now I will agree there are some situations where it may be courteous to resign, however-that is at the discretion of the player who believes his position is hopeless. IF that player believes he has chances to avoid losing, he has every right to play it out.

Let me remind you also there's nothing illegal about players using their reflection time as they see fit (read the rules). In difficult positions it's normal for players to slow down and think harder. Ideally you want to manage your clock so you don't get into difficult positions but stuff happens. 

If you believe you're on the winning end of one of these games, and the player starts to slow down - oh, well. You agreed to the time control, and you can't change that time control mid-game (read the rules).

I don't doubt some of those players who slow down are being jerks but you have to remember two things: 1. when the players clock runs out, you win and 2. why not blow off some steam and do some analysis while your opponents clock is ticking?

I still maintain the vast majority of people who post griping about the non-resigners are frustrated because they don't know how to get the job done.

If you're winning, win! Quit whining!


One thing, that seems to help, when feeling the need to slow down, is posting a comment along the lines of "Need some time to think about this" so as to let the opponent Both, know why the slow down is happening, AND to help build their feelings of superiority *hopefully leading to their downfall* 

IshVarLan
RathHood wrote:

Well Ish it depends. When I play against someone strong (let's say 2000+) it would be just a waste of mine and his time to play Q+K against K for example. In hopeless situation I prefer to resign and move on coz I won't learn anything knew from playing it ( I already mastered Q+K against K endings).


 True enough, and again, there are times, especially on Gameknot with the 12 game concurrent games limit, when Ish sees a "lost cause" and moves on .. That said, it feels abit cheap/cowardly/suicidal to resign .. If Ish was simply gonna end things when it was a "lost cause" .. wouldn't Ish be Dead by now?? *realises we might place too much investment/projection/importance on Chess games*

There is, as others have mentioned, also the chance to Learn as You watch the opponent Dessimate you

Honestly, there have been countless times when the opponent *in Our oppinion* had us 100% DEAD .. and then they Blew it

Davey_Johnson
IshVarLan wrote:
RathHood wrote:

Well Ish it depends. When I play against someone strong (let's say 2000+) it would be just a waste of mine and his time to play Q+K against K for example. In hopeless situation I prefer to resign and move on coz I won't learn anything knew from playing it ( I already mastered Q+K against K endings).


 True enough, and again, there are times, especially on Gameknot with the 12 game concurrent games limit, when Ish sees a "lost cause" and moves on .. That said, it feels abit cheap/cowardly/suicidal to resign .. If Ish was simply gonna end things when it was a "lost cause" .. wouldn't Ish be Dead by now?? *realises we might place too much investment/projection/importance on Chess games*

There is, as others have mentioned, also the chance to Learn as You watch the opponent Dessimate you

Honestly, there have been countless times when the opponent *in Our oppinion* had us 100% DEAD .. and then they Blew it


But again, all of that depends heavily on the skill level of the opponent. Absolutely no offense to our good friend Ish (whom we hope can forgive us for saying this after knowing eachother all these years!), but the competition Ish faces is still only in the 1000-1300 range on average, and Ish is right within that range himself.

Players in that range tend to be more 'careless' about their moves and will make huge mistakes more often, so it is relatively ok to not give up. But once you get up into the 1500+ range, the chances of the opponent horribly screwing up and blowing a clearly won position start to fade away at an exponential rate (perhaps because the higher rated players are naturally a bit more devoted to the game, and will take more time analysing their moves and performing the routine 'sanity checks' before moving).

For instance, has Teary yet messed up and stalemated Ish in his "Angry Angry Teary-O's" game, even though we have four Knights about to be on the board all very close to the King? There is of course a chance of Teary messing up there, but it is very small :(

*huggles Ish and begs his forgiveness*

Okolo

I checkmate them.  DUH!!!

IshVarLan
Okolo wrote:

I checkmate them.  DUH!!!


 Those who CAN checkmate DO :P

heinzie

If my opponent doesn't resign, I'll try in vain not to give away my advantage

Davey_Johnson

Ok then, well how about a more classic example of what it means to waste time by not resigning:

If I were playing white in this game, I would have resigned after the 26th move (white had no resources left and absolute no way to out-manuever two Knights), but it keeps going on for 60! Very annoying for a CC game.

Davey_Johnson
El_Senior wrote:

Teary, any idea why White played 17. Rae1 instead of 17. g4 threatening to win the pinned piece? 

You're quite right though, in that game...resignation was long overdue.


Good question El_Senior. It was not an oversight on my part, because 17. g4 would have lost to 17. ... Qxd4+. White is then forced to trade Queens instead of winning a Knight (which actually still happened in the real game).

Optimum225

WEll, the way I see it.. if they have time left, then they have a right to fight it out.  I've won many games, NOT resigning. haha :) 

On a serious note, if  I"m the one, in a loosing position, I often make the comment that, " I want to stick it out till I'm positive it's a lost game", which is followed by another 2 or 3 moves. In saying that, I don't think everyone, who is in a lost position knows that, specially when it's an inexperienced player. 

All in all, we all have been there. Who doesn't smile just a tad when we are winning the game and the other person is burying himself some?   Let's just enjoy the GAME. :)

peretrix

I do something else and wait. Then I block them.

Optimum225

booooo Peretrix ;) meanie

caseyFgriffin

I'm always fine with it , i mean come on what is the worst that can happen? Also i'm terrible at OTB endgames so having a chance to think them out in CC is good for me. 

peretrix

I do something else and wait. Then I block them.

Sofademon

I play correspondance, so I don 't have issues with people playing clock games with me.  I find that I often end up in endgames where I have a very strong advantage, and people keep wiggling on the hook.  Its ok, at the level I play blunders happen, and its reasonable to set some tactical challenges for your opponenet and make him "earn" the point.  I do sometimes get frustrated when what the other guy is doing simply doesn't help his position and he is just treading water, but in those situations you just put your boot to his throat and squeeze.  If it really is a won position I win eventually.  If they drug the game out far beyond the point it was interesting I probably would not take a rematch request.

gambitsareok
General_Dreedle wrote:
echecs06 wrote:

teary, your remarks should apply to both cc and live chess. When I play a 15' game and  my opponent (as an example) loses his queen after a couple of minutes and loses badly, if he makes me wait 10-12 minutes before I can enjoy my win, this is also an abuse. I could use my precious time to play another game. Instead, my sore loser of opponent makes me wait and wait and wait and wait.


 What's worse, a sore loser or a sore winner?


I would rather play a sore loser than any kind of winner. HAHA

Frankdawg

I just play out the game like normal, sometimes though depending on the situation I take longer than necessary for example if I have a rook and 4 pawns and my opponenent has a lone king and has not resigned sometimes I will promote every pawn then mate even throwing pieces away in the process of the mate making the mating process more painfully slow for them

couchpotatoe
DC-poc wrote:

You haz to win their base as well...dont u knowz nuffin?


 I know muffin !!!!Money mouth

IshVarLan
couchpotatoe wrote:
DC-poc wrote:

You haz to win their base as well...dont u knowz nuffin?


 I know muffin !!!!


Macademia Nuts!!!!!

 Meanwhile, back OT .. Isn't the point of Chess to play the Game??  Now granted some will argue that once one side is "done" the game should end .. Too bad

Den'Sha .. "To the Death"

If the "losing" player is so pathetic, shouldn't the "winning" player, be More than willing to "help" the loser along, showing him how Winning is done? .. Mayhaps the next match will go smoother for Player X based on what player Y *for whiner?* has taught him/her

It seems like some, not all .. just Some, of those who complain about non-resigners are CS, or Chess Snobs .. Granted, again Some, not all .. but Some, CS have Earned there egos .. doesn't make them come across any easier

Understandably, if there's only 1 "legal" move, and Player X takes 10 days to make it .. that would be More than annoying, but even so, it's his/her right .. just as it is Player Y's right to decide whether to Ever play him/her again

Archaic71

Meh, i pay no attention either way.  When I am beat, I resign - when I am winning, I try to win.  If somebody wants to spend two weeks while my queen and rook chase around their bare-naked-king, so be it.  I am not going to time out, so I don't care.

I only play tournament games or team match games, so the rematch thing is not a factor.