Perhaps we should have two lists: players who get irrate when someone does not resign and players who don't resign. Then we can decide which group to avoid.


no way I think that is very unsportman thing to do, to name player like that, no way.


we (me and you) have a low rating, so we make lots of error when we play

sometimes it's possible for a player to save a "hopeless position" against us.


and maybe a player could play to see what to play and then improve his skill looking your game.

if he doesn't resign you could simply use conditional move , leave the game and concentrate on another game.


I doesn't understand your hate against those player.


sorry for my bad english


nail on the head elcabesa a player can always learn from the player who is winning so comfortably against them and sometimes they have hope so maybe u shouldn't get so arrogant as to assume the game is won everyone can make mistakes in the end game and whats wrong with the satisfaction of check mating your opponent?


I wish I had a dollar for every advantage I've thrown away by a bungled play. (A euro for each one would be even better!)


"nail on the head" is difficult for me, are you telling i'm right? or was I wrong?



Hitting a nail on the head (top) is so much better than hitting your finger!

Tongue out


Duffer1965 wrote:

Perhaps we should have two lists: players who get irrate when someone does not resign and players who don't resign. Then we can decide which group to avoid.



Dmytro, you misunderstand completely. Elcabesa said that the player with an advantage could easily make a mistake that could change the tide of the game. He did not say "Oh greater chess player, won't you please grace me with your infinite knowledge and let me continue to lose against you even though I am unworthy."

Seriously, come off it. I agree with him that it makes no sense and is quite immature to hate a player because they do not resign when you would like them to.


dear dmytro, maybe you should carefully read what I said. :)

FIRST) I told presort that someone playing against me (1300) could hope I'll do some error even if I'm winning and he is in a hopeless position, since MY rating is low.

SECOND) I never told i doesn't resign when I'm in a hopeless position, look at my recent games if you want. I resign lots of games.

THIRD) if a high reting player (1700) play agains a low rating player (1200-1300) he is sure to win, but he should know that the other player goal is not to win but to learn.

Hi hope we'l not start a big flame :)


Resigning can hurt ratings.  And, yes, the player with the advantage can stumble quite badly.

Then there's the timed games on Live Chess where you can hop the King around the board until time runs out!

Let's not forget the possibility of stalemate...


what about a list of list makers


bastiaan wrote:

what about a list of list makers

yeah :)


Presort wrote:

Box them into a corner and allow them only two squares in which to move and don't put them in mate for as long as possible before putting them in check mate.

make a list of such players and post their names so the rest of us can avoid playing them.

This sounds like the nerds on warcraft who make ban lists of players they don't like...  Let's learn to be friends with everyone instead of tryinig to divide each other :)  Perhaps better people skills will solve such problems (oh wait im on a chess site X_X )




I know that technique, forget it won't work not on me.


It is seldom straightforward for a third party to deduce - simply from looking a board position - whether it is the 'right' time for one of the players to resign. One has to factor in the relative skill levels of the players, the probability of the outcome, the mood of the game and the players' philosophies/attitudes. To play on when a move or two away from an unstoppable checkmate requires a certain stoicism.




As a player improves they learn when to resign. If it irritates you when a player will not resign a lost position just checkmate them as quickly as possible and do not play them again.