Letting the clock run certainly is not respectfull but neither is demanding resignation.
If he wanted to play he should play.It's his right.
The game ends when the opponent wants not when you "demand".
Why don't players resign?
Sort:
i think youre reading into what i said the wrong way, i stated it was a win for white and also gave the notation for the longest variation he had to delay white taking f4 which would eventually end with white having a promoted piece. it wasent a demand that the player resign. he could have played for a draw if he wanted.
Then we agree 
totally :D
"If your opponent continues the game while down several pieces,don't get angry about his lack of respect and don't let this situation affect your concentration. The correct reaction is to work hard to finish him off in the safest and most effective manner."
IM Jeremy Silman
[COMMENT DELETED]
Apr 18, 2012
0
#188
snakery wrote:
"If your opponent continues the game while down several pieces,don't get angry about his lack of respect and don't let this situation affect your concentration. The correct reaction is to work hard to finish him off in the safest and most effective manner."
IM Jeremy Silman
This depends on whom you're playing. If I was playing an International Master, sure I would resign a lost game, knowing he would not concede a stalemate, hence out of respect for him and to not waste both of our time. If I am playing a much less knowledgeable player why should I resign if there is a greater chance of a stalemate?
You have to take all things into consideration.
chess_kebabs wrote:
snakery wrote:
"If your opponent continues the game while down several pieces,don't get angry about his lack of respect and don't let this situation affect your concentration. The correct reaction is to work hard to finish him off in the safest and most effective manner."
IM Jeremy Silman
This depends on whom you're playing. If I was playing an International Master, sure I would resign a lost game, knowing he would not concede a stalemate, hence out of respect for him and to not waste both of our time. If I am playing a much less knowledgeable player why should I resign if there is a greater chance of a stalemate?
You have to take all things into consideration.
The advice is is for the player with the advantage, not to whether the losing player should or should not resign.
Apr 18, 2012
0
#190
@Snakery... you mentioned lack of respect .. there is no lack of respect to continue playing when there is a chance of a stalemate!
Lack of respect is not respecting your opponent's right to decide when to resign and when not.That's the only lack of respect a chessplayer can have.
BABS, this is Silmans view, not necessarily mine. Jeremy is a world class teacher,writer and player. He authored over 30 best selling chess books,and has written dozens of articles that have appeared in magazines throughout the world. I thought his take might be interesting to some. Again, my opinion is not presented.
I am sure you can find him easily on line if you want to give him a piece of your mind.
The quote is from Silman's "The Complete Book Of Chess Strategy"
Have a great day down under,and keep an eye out for those big crocks.
I'm usually down on material, but I still play it out till the end. Even if I only have my king, I'll play really fast so their clock runs down and not mine. Though I don't like when someone clock ticks without moving for 10 minutes because you have an unblockable mate in 1. When that happens, I premove and go do something else.
[COMMENT DELETED]
I would readily resign more so online, than over the board, I guess that is because unlike the OTB ones, I did NOT pay a tournament and registration fee
That feeling of, it dont really matter
And plus, I do not have that depth and strength. If my opponent gives me a game that further reemphasizes that which I do not have, I would honestly like to sit down, and revaluate on the things which I do not have with Fritz or preferably with that same opponent, instead of prolonging what might be the inevitable
Apr 18, 2012
0
#197
snakery wrote:
BABS, this is Silmans view, not necessarily mine. Jeremy is a world class teacher,writer and player. He authored over 30 best selling chess books,and has written dozens of articles that have appeared in magazines throughout the world. I thought his take might be interesting to some. Again, my opinion is not presented.
I am sure you can find him easily on line if you want to give him a piece of your mind.
The quote is from Silman's "The Complete Book Of Chess Strategy"
Have a great day down under,and keep an eye out for those big crocks.
Maybe he is referring only to high end level players. Where of course a GM or IM is not going to concede a stalemate, and the chances of a GM or IM blundering when ahead in material is very minute... sure, I agree with his opinion there.. or anyone losing against an IM or GM.. but if he is referring to every player in a losing position should resign, regardless of what level playing ability their opponent possesses, then he is very wrong.
And I saw some crocs in January, up close and personal. They say hello.
Apr 18, 2012
0
#198
Because I've played so many more online games now than OTB games, when I play OTB I really struggle to strategize as well as I can in online games (which isn't that brilliantly anyway), but it's worse in OTB. And I've played a few OTB games recently.. it's so much more clearer to see the pieces all and analyze better when looking at the online board.. and my chess set is marble, on the same coloured marble board (for white anyway).. makes it even more difficult!
chess_kebabs wrote:
And I've played a few OTB games recently.. it's so much more clearer to see the pieces all and analyze better when looking at the online board.. and my chess set is marble, on the same coloured marble board (for white anyway).. makes it even more difficult!
It is just the opposite for me, I struggle so very much to stay focus online. I should consider an anti-glare screen or maybe new glasses
I do read stuff online, but when it comes to word puzzles or chess, where you would have to stay focus on one area, my eyes will tear
I do see better where I set up the pieces, maybe that because I do not use a Marble Chess set, the glare on that thing must be like headlights on a deer
chess_kebabs wrote:
boringidiot wrote:
I am not talking about being a pawn down, or two, with some pratical but remote chances to survive.
I am talking about being LOST. King vs King and Rook. That kind of thing. Or King and Pawn, vs King, and you cannot stop the pawn from promoting, because your king is too far away.
You should reckognize that you have played so badly that you don't have the right to waste your opponent's time any more.
You should recognise that players can get stalemates in very lost positions, and often do. I have gotten many from opponents getting too complacent and forgetting to double check if their move is going to award a stalemate. Why should anyone resign with that possibility when stalemate is a legal outcome in chess?
Do you think the player in the winning position should be given the win if he or she is sharp during the opening and middle game but not sharp during the endgame?
Do you dispute the legality of the Stalemate rule? I can only see you do to not think it's fair and right to allow every opponent to fight for a legal/allowed rule/outcome of chess.
I completely disagree with with you, chess_kebabs. First off, you have to think your opponent is mistake-prone to believe he or she is going to stalemate you when he's up a queen. That to me shows a low regard for his playing strength right there. I wouldn't go so far as to always call it a lack of respect, but I seriously think you are overestimating the chance of a stalemate (more on this in a minute). I liken it to seeing an adult with his shoelaces untied and then assuming that he doesn't know how to tie his shoes.
I was taught, as I'm sure most people still are, to always assume your opponent will find the best move. If you can see a mate or the winning plan for your opponent, why would you assume that he or she doesn't?
I suppose the above statement gets at the core of why I find playing out a lost position so distasteful. I don't see my opponent as having a fighting spirit, nor am I thinking that I am so superior to him that he is not worthy of playing on. Quite the contrary, I assume that he has such a low opinion of me (lack of respect), that he believes I don't know how to win a queen up. Now, I can't read anyone's mind, and I may be entirely wrong in my assumption, but I'm just letting you know where I am coming from so we can understand each other. Most of the people who have posted here in favor playing on don't seem to be the 1800+ rated players who irk me by interposing a piece that can be taken for free, just to postpone mate by one move and avoid resigning.
And as for stalemates happening "often", I can't see your stats, but out of nearly 500 blitz games, I have about 10 draws. I think I have plenty of fighting spirit, by the way, but I still have respect for my opponents enough that I will usually resign when I lose a piece, because i think that even with best play, they will be able to win eventually. Anyway, that is a 2% draw rate, and probably 90% of those draws occurred when I gobbled up all my opponent's mating material but ran out of time. So I would hardly call a stalemate rate of 0.2% "often". In bullet, my draw rate is about the same, and the stalemate rate might be higher, but it's definitely well below 2% of my games.
And no, I'm not an IM or a GM. Even when I was a beginner at around 1250 over the board, I don't think I ever had someone play out king and rook or king and queen vs. king in a tournament game. Most people resigned (35 years ago) when they lost a piece if they were over 1400. It's only been since the advent of internet chess that I've noticed people playing out dead lost positions.
i agree that a losing position at times can be turned to not only a draw but a win, on occasion. maybe you could refine the question? i had a player last night offer a draw as black after consolidating from being two pawns up then to matched with two pawns each, then it became a win for white. his responce when i declined a draw and stated that the position was a win for white was to run the clock for ten minutes till i won on time. in that game i would have been a fool to resign considering the outcome. yet in that case i had a situation where i do believe a person could be respectful and resign. i will post the position so you can see what it was in the end.