Why don't players resign?

  • #1

    I know it's been discussed on here before but I was wondering if anyone has got some insight on the subject.

    Im not talking about players that are trying to go for a stalemate.  Im talking about the guys that know they have no prayer on winning and yet waste 10+ minutes messing around when they could be playing another game.

    Recently I played a game where I had 2 queens and a king vs his king and he took 3 minutes between each move just to waste my time.  The last game I played this clown stalled til he had no moves left and then disconnected.

    I just dont get whats in it for them.  They could spend that 10 minutes or so and start a new game where they could actually win.

    Anyone that does it wanna fess up?  Anyone that doesnt have any logical reasons why they would?

  • #2
    thedecider wrote:

    I know it's been discussed on here before but I was wondering if anyone has got some insight on the subject.

    Im not talking about players that are trying to go for a stalemate.  Im talking about the guys that know they have no prayer on winning and yet waste 10+ minutes messing around when they could be playing another game.

    Recently I played a game where I had 2 queens and a king vs his king and he took 3 minutes between each move just to waste my time.  The last game I played this clown stalled til he had no moves left and then disconnected.

    I just dont get whats in it for them.  They could spend that 10 minutes or so and start a new game where they could actually win.

    Anyone that does it wanna fess up?  Anyone that doesnt have any logical reasons why they would?


     First of all, this already been discussed before LONG ago. Why don't they resign? They don't want to give up that easily or they have a plan. If they don't have a prayer of winning that probably means they want to see how you finish them off with a mate that they dont know. And if you say you get impatient playing a game with someone who takes 3 minutes to move you won't last 5 minutes in a LIVE tournament.

  • #3

    100% agree with Starman, I play alot of long otb tournaments, and some of the lower rated opponents want to see how its done, and two queens do leave chances to stalemate, I believe Kasparov did this in a blitz game once. 

  • #4

    Hm... it may be that they honestly crave to learn how to checkmate with two Queens or some such, or it may be that they are hoping that you lose patience and abandon the game.

  • #5

    If I have two queens I think my opponent has the right to play on until mate if he wants to see if I might stalemate him (which I actually did once or twice - nowadays I prefer to promote to a rook in this situation ;)

    If it's me in the losing position, I tend to resign simply because I have no fun in playing out a hopeless position just hoping for stalemate, opponent's disconnection or whatever, and rather go for a new game.

  • #6
    The main objective of the game is checkmate, so it's within the rules to play it out.Stalling, although unethicall(by many) is also within the rules.
  • #7

    They could be waiting for something like this(so play it out): www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=43000682

  • #8

    Did you ask him?  If you know him what is his attitude like. Ive played people who have not resigned because it is a form of aggression.  If he won't respond to your questions I think he wants to bounce the pieces on the floor.

  • #9

    Because they feel it is not over until you mate them regardless of the fact that they have no hope of winning

  • #10

    Sometimes, with no hope of winning, i think it's a form of respect not to resign and let him get to his ultimate goal: checkmate. this of course depends of the situation, and taking 3 minutes per move does not fall in this category. If I find myself in this losing situation, i do still usually go blitz mode.

  • #11

    I frequently play the game out if I see that I can't win, but don't see how they will. However, if I see how they can win, I usually just resign.

  • #12

    All right.

    Good points made all around, but I think the real issue that gets on my nerves is stalling. I actually appreciate it when opponents give me a chance to work on my endgame and really crunch the last few moves rather than just resigning when I have a significant advantage. But the idiots who sit there and stall aren't just thinking in a lot of cases. Yes, Starman, in a real tournament, moves take a lot longer. However, when I'm playing a 15 30 game, because I like to think about my moves, and my opponent plays fast throughout and then starts taking five minutes a move when it gets hopeless... Eh. That's cheap and annoying.

    Just my two cents. Disagree if you like.

    -Leo

  • #13
    Stallers have their reasons, just like the ones always wanting to play with white pieces have their reason. :-)
  • #14

    Because people are mean to each other.

  • #15

    Just have fun.  In the end chess will beat us all. (grin)

  • #16

    I think it sometimes come back to 'real world' vs 'net' and blitz vs long.

    If I was in the 'real world' playing a tournament match against someone, and I had pleasnty of time and they made me checkmate with K-R vs K it would be a bit of an insult.  But then these players tend to have a lot of competative experiance, and there is a code of manners that builds up between them 

    In blitz, everything is fine, because time is a legitimate way to win. 

  • #17
    thedecider wrote:

    I know it's been discussed on here before but I was wondering if anyone has got some insight on the subject.


    Fall down much?

  • #18

    Always the same topics discussed

  • #19
    heinzie wrote:

    Always the same topics discussed


    How come did you realize this so late? :)))

  • #20

    Like any forum you're going to get the same questions asked all the time. That's how it goes. If it wasn't for that the forum would be a dull, dead place, without much interactivity.

Top
This forum topic has been locked

Online Now