This entire situation is stupid because no one has even mentioned the conditional moves option. If it was really a mate in 2 like the op said then the winning party should have just plugged in conditional moves and been done with it. And it's not like the losing party went "on vacation" in the cc game-that is a frustrating thing, he just wanted to play the game of chess to the end for whatever misguided reason. But the bigger of the idiots is the one that didnt seal the deal.
Let me pose a question on when to resign.
Here is a game I played a few weeks ago
1/- e4, c5
2/- Qh5, d6
3/- Bc4, g6
4/- Qe5 White resigns before I could respond.
So was this resignation justified?
Well, of course the resignation is (to use your word) "justified". If people (as LoveYouSoMuch said) "have the right to play whatever legal moves they want to, in whatever remaining time they have left," then they also have the right to resign whenever they so choose.I think the real question you're trying to pose is whether or not your opponent resigned too soon. The answer to that question imho is "very very unlikely".I mean I don't see the point in continuing such a game UNLESS some special circumstance is present such as he being an absolute beginner, you being an absolute beginner, you only having 30 seconds left to win the game, you being on the verge of cardiac arrest, him spotting you a queen because he's a GM, etc.Of course all of this is subjective, but I wouldn't be surprised if the view I described would be the general opinion about that particular case.
Now let me pose this question: What is a better use of time? Waiting to see if you'll return the blunder? Or assuming you'll play the best move and thus deciding to moving on to analysis, study, or playing another game?
You are correct of course. All things being equal White should resign after what must have been a blunder. I assume he intended to play Qd5 lining up on Blacks f7 pawn. But we are not computers & that's the good thing about Chess no matter how many books we read & how much we analyze an opening the human element still comes into play.
So what really happened? Well after Whites elegant attempt at a Queen sacrifice black declines to accept it & plays 5/- ....., Bg7!! offering a stunning counter sacrifice of a Bishop, Rook & a couple of pawns. At this point black would have resigned.
Ok, so this is starting to look like a bad TV game of Chess. I was slightly distracted by a shout of “Fire!” from our kitchen & without really looking at the board I played Bg7 to kick the Queen & ran for the fire extinguisher. When I returned my move had not been accepted & White had resigned. There must have been a couple of seconds lag in the system & Whites resignation went through before my brilliant Bg7 move made it to the server. So if White had waited 1 move to see my response he would have won the game. Does it really matter? No it just demonstrates that almost anything can happen in Chess & if you play long enough you will see some weird stuff.
The game looks like a couple of kids who have just learned the moves & if it was I would have told them to play it out & learn to think about consequences before moving. For me it was just one of those weird things that happen from time to time. So as you asked, Whats the best use of time here? For you or I its a rematch or move onto the next opponent, for 2 absolute beginners its play it out & learn from it.
The longer I stay on this thread the more I am convinced that we can never come up with a single rule for resignation ettiquette. Just respect your opponent & the Game. If your opponent refuses to resign in a hopeless position that's not a reason to abuse him. Just play it to Mate as quickly as you can. Try for a spectacular sacrifice & a smothered Mate if you like or just use it to sharpen up your Blitz game by moving quickly. Even for people who are getting out of the beginner phase they have to learn to finish a game, so there is another group who may benefit from playing it out rather than have their opponent resign.
Good post by queentakesknight.
You're right. No "resignation ettiquette" everyone agrees on exists because ettiquette (especially "chess ettiquette") is largely subjective. At the same time, I'm not naiive to the fact that many players would be angry at me if I decided to play on in a hopeless correspondance game.However I agree with you, I don't think refusing to resign in a hopeless position with a 5 days per time control is a reason to abuse someone. What I usually do against someone like that is program a forced mate with the conditional move function, and then I type out the sequence in the chat for my opponent to read. Whatever my opponent chooses to do next is his (or her) problem from that point forward.
Another one from the archives of my previous chess life.
How would you handle this situation? My old Chess club in a town of 25,000 in Australia was always struggling to get more players. A new guy turns up & the club Secretary greets him & has a chat. He then introduces him to me & asks if I'm free to give him a game. So we choose pawns & he gets white. We sit down at the board & he plays both the a & h pawns simultaneously 1 square. 1/- a3 h3
So I'm staring at the board wondering if someone had spiked my coffee & trying to work out how to write it on the scoresheet. I don't think thats a legal move I offered. He said Oh yes it is, its played everywhere in Europe. Hmmm, new player, illegal move!! So I ask the Secretary if he has ever seen the move. He grabs the rule book & says its not in the FIDE rules. The new guy insists it is played world wide especially in his home village in Yugoslavia. He was becoming somewhat heated about it & I could see he genuinely believed it to be a legal move & it was going to end in a big argument if we refused to allow it. So keeping in mind that we were a small club desperately in need of more members how do we handle the situation? I'll post what we did after everyone has a chance to comment but it does have some relevancy to this thread as it could have rapidly degenerated into an abusive shouting match.
Also has anyone ever seen that move or know its origin? The explanation behind it was that it could only be played by White & only on the 1st move, 2 pawns moving 1 square = 1 pawn moving 2 squares!