So you had to checkmate your opponent? Don't they know the rules?!
Where are some players common sense
Sort:
Jun 21, 2010
0
#3
Estragon wrote:
I know what you mean! Believe me, I am continually frustrated and insulted by the failure of players to resign immediately upon finding out they have to play me. Why, sometimes I have to play out whole games, too! It's humiliating . . .
Those people just don't understand chess! I would resign against you immediately, because I play by the rules and respect this game.
You are playing morons.
Thanks for everyone's replies...
Everything said mirrors my own thoughts on such encounters - that some players logic, etc, flies out the window for some reason.
Maybe there was some sort of gamesmanship involved, hoping I would get so frustrated, that I would put the Q on that white diagonal by mistake... And you know what? I nearly did...
This is the reason I do not resign. I never thought for a minute I could get the draw, but gave it a go anyway.
As for resigning simply because someone is a higher rating, is a ridiculous idea. If you never play people who are better, how can you ever improve. There are a lot of lower rated people that are fully paid members, which ensure that this site can keep running for all. I enjoy playing 2000+ players. It gives me a chance to marvel at their skill and foresight - to see how the game should really be played. Perhaps if you are significantly higher rated, then sacrifice a few pieces to even it up - or maybe there are sites that are solely for players who are too grand to play the masses, and funded by chess geniuses - fortunately for me, this is not one of them. I would also direct you to Hetul Shah, who with a rating of 1817, beat a grandmaster nearly 600 points above him. For your interest, the game is below. I bet after this game, Ibrayev agrees that lower ranked players should indeed resign on seeing his superior rating.
Jun 22, 2010
0
#7
IMPaulyn wrote: As for resigning simply because someone is a higher rating, is a ridiculous idea. If you never play people who are better, how can you ever improve. There are a lot of lower rated people that are fully paid members, which ensure that this site can keep running for all. I enjoy playing 2000+ players. It gives me a chance to marvel at their skill and foresight - to see how the game should really be played. Perhaps if you are significantly higher rated, then sacrifice a few pieces to even it up - or maybe there are sites that are solely for players who are too grand to play the masses, and funded by chess geniuses - fortunately for me, this is not one of them. I would also direct you to Hetul Shah, who with a rating of 1817, beat a grandmaster nearly 600 points above him. For your interest, the game is below. I bet after this game, Ibrayev agrees that lower ranked players should indeed resign on seeing his superior rating.
I agree! I don't really understand why someone would resign just because the other player is higher rated then them. You don't get better by resigning. And after all, everyone starts the game with the same pieces on the board.
Brilliant play by Shah, too!
IMPaulyn wrote:
This is the reason I do not resign. I never thought for a minute I could get the draw, but gave it a go anyway.
Of course you could get the draw, in that position with a desperado Rook.
So, you did not play on in a lost position, you played on in a drawn position. Nobody says you shouldn't do that, or even play on if there is a chance that you could force or swindle such a situation. But once your opponent has shown he is aware of the stalemate possibilities, and avoids them, well, you're just wasting everybody's time.
IMPaulyn wrote:
This is the reason I do not resign. I never thought for a minute I could get the draw, but gave it a go anyway.
very nice game, its really great that you noticed an eternal rook there 
As for the original question, well the objective of the entire game is to checkmate the opponent (Fide laws of chess Article 1.2 - Basic rules of play), you can't blame someone for actually wants to see it happening.
Lot of lower rated players play till the mate, if you are so upsett with it, you can block them.
I agree; that if there is the possibility of a draw situation, then you should by all means play for it, but in this specific game there was no draw situation arising.
paulgottlieb wrote:
There is no ethical or legal requirement to resign in a "lost" position. When to resign is entirely up to the individual. You should always be prepared to play until mate. Besides, what is an obvious win to you may not look that way to your opponent. In fact, more players resign too early than too late.
My experience has been overwhelmingly the opposite (talking online chess that is).
paulgottlieb wrote:
There is no ethical or legal requirement to resign in a "lost" position. When to resign is entirely up to the individual. You should always be prepared to play until mate. Besides, what is an obvious win to you may not look that way to your opponent. In fact, more players resign too early than too late.
Sure, this is why we see so many master games going until mate....
hi
hi
i rock
woops
woops
hi
In this game recently finished, black had no play many moves ago and the obvious should have been staring my opponent in-the face many moves ago, yet before the check-mate my knight is attacked by the bishop... Why do some players go on fighting to the end even when their position is hopeless. I would have resigned ages ago, no question about that.