Why don't players resign?

Sort:
chapablanca2000

And I was going to add, is it really worth it to me to salvage maybe 1 to 2% (at the most!) more games by playing on the weaker side of king and rook vs. king? No way. It's a complete waste of time as well as that of my opponent. I'd rather just play a new game and try and avoid losing a rook again. 

chapablanca2000

Geez, Chris. Were you born an arsehole, or do you have to work at it? 

chapablanca2000

Really, I wasn't calling anyone one names, and at the worst I was pointing out behavior (interposing a piece) that I think everyone would agree is just immature, and you have to put on your post police hat and immediately come over here with a smart-arse comment. As you might put it, go feck yourself.

Michael-G
chapablanca2000 wrote:
 

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?

 

 

 Why if your opponent has a positional advantage you keep playing?Don't you assume by that that he will not play the best and he will lose it?

There are 2 facts.

First

Your opponent is not forced to recognise or accept your expertise.You do it because you want to do it not because someone is forcing you(unless there is something I don't know)

Second

The opponent maybe wants to see your technique and learn from it.

I do resign when I have a piece down and no realistic chance to fight but I don't do it as respect to my opponent.I simply do it because there is a line after which chess stops being fun and becomes a torture.It's the moment when I know I have to resign.

    Resigning has nothing to do with respect.Once I decide to play with you it means that I accept that you can give me 10(or more) minutes of fun and maybe a chance to learn something and improve.My valuable time I spend with you IS my respect and it is a huge one.How I will spend this time is up to me and no one else.If I enjoy playing with 3 queens down you are the one that has to respect that and accept that it is my right. 

 

chapablanca2000

Nowhere did I state that my opponent doesn't have the right to keep playing. In fact I specifically mentioned that it wasn't the case that I feel my opponent no longer has the right to continue. Someone else stated that, but even I would say that's contrary to the rules. And if I demand your resgination or say something nasty during or after the game, that's entirely inappropriate and I should be called on it. 

But just because something is allowed by the rules doesn't always mean it's appropriate. In baseball, it's not against the rules to show up the pitcher, but it's sill frowned upon. 

 

And again, I also specifically mentioned 1800+ players, who should certainly have some measure of technique, as well as 1400 level tournament players back in the day. Are you saying a player rated 1400 OTB doesn't know how to win king and queen vs king? Because that is the sort of material advantage I have in mind, not one or two pawns up. 

snakery

I feel compelled to once again point out that the opinion relates only to the player with the advantage. In fact he generally advocates playing until the board is sterile at the club level. This particular book is for beginners to intermediate players. One of my favorites,

Speaking of books, Susan Polgar's "Chess Tactics For Champions" is incredible ,though it has nothing to do with this topic...for more advanced players.

When in Sydney, watch out for those wacky Funnel Webs during mating season. 

This forum topic has been locked