When to Resign

Well, I checkmated him with 2 queens, a bishop and a rook. Finally, and he still tells me he never ever resigns in principle!

It's rude to tell an opponent to resign.  He's playing the game by the rules(something you're not doing).  Shut up.

Not likely. I won anyway you chump!

I know you won.  That doesn't excuse your rude behavior.

you shouldn't have been complainig if you could of just checmated him

Hey Larla.  I agree that people should know when to resign but it looks like you missed a few check mate opportunities earlier in the game.  So I think it's fair play for an opponant to play on in those circumstances. 

Larla, There is another way of looking at it. If the person refusing to resign has a couple of other games going whereby he/she is winning and looking likely to win, hence increase his/her rating then it would be worth hanging out a game your looking likely to lose, especially if those other games are higher ranked players. The reason for this is if you get the points from the other games and your rating improves, its gonna have a direct effect on the amount of points you win (or lose if your being beaten by a player with a lower rating). As I see it the site is set up to encourage winning, hence rewards in the form of rating points, If thats the case then the loser is chess etiquette, guess it all depends on what you want from the game!

Always good to put up a sprited fight...and it improves ur end game :), besides no rules to say ur opponent must resign???

In most sports games are played to their natural conclusion no matter how hopelessly behind one side may be. No football team (whatever sport you call football where you live, doesn't matter) feels put out when their opponents play to the end of regulation even though hopelessly behind- it would probably be considered horribly unsporting behaviour if they did. I am most thankful that resignation is a normal part of chess not when an opponent resigns, but when it spares me the joyless tedium of playing out a lost game. You aren't doing yourself any favours by convincing yourself your opponent owes it to you to resign, especially if it leads you to go so far as to ask an opponent to resign. Personally I'd be in a bit of a quandry if an opponent asked me to resign. Being asked by an opponent to resign is considered so inexcusably unsportsmanlike by many that even the most considerate player who would never be so petty as to drag out a game just to annoy an opponent would rather play than risk leaving the offending opponent the faintest impression that their bad manners had any part in their decision to resign. If nothing else then, consider the practical issue that suggesting an opponent resign is more likely to prolong the game than anything else.

The analogy with other sports is flawed. The current play of a football game is unaffected by the score or who is winning. Each team can play their best at any point in the game, even if winning is hopelessly out of reach. In chess, this is not the case. If your opponent has taken all your pieces,  you can't play at your full strength. Imagine a football game where the side behind is left with only one defender while the winning side has most of their team on the field.

Maybe he's looking for a stalemate? It's quite easy to fall into that trap when you have so many pieces and the opponent has so few.

How about instead of asking people to resign, just put them in checkmate...

 

But then again, doing so will remove the reason to post a complaint in the forum, so forget I mentioned the whole checkmate thing...

if you have that much material... you should just mate him.

if he's taking time to make his moves... that's his right.  if he has the time.  as a player.  if it's costing you money to be online.  well then you need to decide if it's worth it to continue this game.

 

i mean ultimately... is the points worth this much stress?   it's just a game.  does your ranking dictate your worth or enjoyment in chess.  I'd definately ask the player to please consider the fact that your interenet is costing you per minute or whatever.  

but along that same view you should consider not wasting too many minutes waiting for him to make a move.  

my own personal advice... mentally you've won.  he's given up on the game because there's no more fun to be had in playing it.  if you can't mate him in 2 or possibly 3 moves.  which...given your indication of time it takes him to move.  you should just quit the game yourself and chalk it up to retarded opponent.

 

or...just relax.  only play when you get a notification from chess.com that he's moved.  and kill him on your schedule.

 

to me... if someone was dicking with me, i'd dick with them.  ie.  eliminate thier knight. advance all my pawns.  and box them in so ridiculously as to truly shame them.   ...but if time is of the essence/money wise.  

just let it alone.  or quit.   

Loomis wrote: The analogy with other sports is flawed...

---

The most brillant analogy is always flawed. If the case was exactly the same in both chess and football then I'd have to come out saying if resignation is a good idea in one then it's a good idea in the other. This, of course, is not what I'm saying. Yes playing out a game of chess when the result is a foregone conclusion but mate is still going to take awhile is dull. (On the other hand when there's some brilliant forced mate it's sometimes nice to see it played out. I've been disappointed a few times when an opponent simply resigned in such a situation.) It's a heck of a lot more dull for the losing side though, and when I resign a game this is my motivation, not the desire to spare my opponent. The point is that you're going to run into opponents who resign late or play through to mate no matter what. The more noise you make, the more you insist that this is rude and unfair, the more rudeness and unfairness you'll experience. Why put yourself through that?

 

 Well, that he won't make his move is not his fault, as long as he is within the stipulated time limit.

Besides, I think you should not be complaning with the caliber of officials at your disposal.

 Just follow the advice given to you by the others and make your move when you can.

You'll surely win.

 

skorj> [T]he more you insist that this is rude ...

 

When the outcome of a game is already decided, it's legal but poor sportsmanship to drag out the game another 20 moves at a slow pace. [Note: I am speaking in general, and not about the specific happenstance of this game.]

 

skorj> ... the more rudeness ... you'll experience.

 

I don't believe that. I buy into the premise that most players here are good  people--who when they must lose--want to behave in a way that makes them friends or at least doesn't annoy folks, and gets them rematches. I justify my premise by pointing out that all of the people I have played here seemed friendly and resigned at the appropriate time or thereabouts. So spreading awareness should not result in increased poor sportsmanship!

 

skorj> Why put yourself through that? 

 

I doubt she wanted to be put through that. She can't control her opponent's actions, only how she responds to them--which is what she asked for help with. :)

I was under the impression that it was against the rules to suggest that someone resigns...

http://support.chess.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=17

 

I don't see that rule in the chess.com rules. Certainly there are both offensive and polite ways to suggest that an opponent resign:

 

   "All your bases are belong to us. RESIGN NOW!!!"

 

   "Good game. Mate in 5. ;)"

I didnt mean the chess.com rules, I actually meant the official chess rules.

He probably is hoping, beyond hope, for a stalemate.

You will agree however, that he is entitled to his time.

 With the powerful pieces you have, you can surely mate him in no time. That you have to prove!

Care to play with someone from the Phil who will resign in a lost position?