chrisr2212 wrote:
sounds cool to me
winning when you should lose? its bullcrap imo
Why don't players resign?
Sort:
If you get just a few rating points higher the players are generally WAY more respectful.
Feb 23, 2012
0
#104
I often sacrifice material or check to defeat premoves when time is running low. At first I thought this was cheap, but now I realize it's just part of the game. I rarely resign in bullet, unless my opponent has a large advantage in both time and material. It's also very difficult to premove to mate sometimes, so it's usually worth playing on in bullet.
Feb 23, 2012
0
#105
if someone doesn't resign in a dead lost position (unless you are almost out of time) they are just being disrespectful to you(and to themselves if it matters) because a) they are just doing it to annoy you and get a rise out of it or b) they honestly think that you are really stupid and will blunder away several pieces in a row or that you will run out of time when you have like 2 or 3 minutes left on your clock. These people are the type that will end up frustrated when you beat them so make sure to rub your win in their faces to rub some salt in their wound!
I like how the guy above me is saying nothing except agreeing with everyone.
The decision about resigning belongs to the player himself and not to his opponent.I agree that it is disrespect to demand resignation because you have a winning position.Personally I don't mind at all playing winning positions(unfortunately it rarely happens, lol).
I believe the old timers called it a "bitter ender"....I'm sure this has been posted, but when a man resigns has more to do with character than anything else. Tis true. There is a point in every game where a man knows he's beat. Some work the clock, others are fighting for something outside of the game....both could be called a clear waste of time.....any position can be set up outside of the OTB game and analyzed...when a person ends it bitterly there is usually an emotional component that extends beyond the game....
The problem that most people are over looking is quite simple. If you play a man quite deep into a game with a clearly winning position - if not a clear win by force, then when a man refuses to resign he is basically giving a big boo hoo to all of your previous play. He's defacto asking you to stab him in the heart. I have a problem with that. If i'm on the battle field, and ambush a man, clearly incapacitating him, and THEN he goes on to ask me to shoot him, because he's concerned I may miss??????? Well excuse me for trying......lord....
Shades of Monty Python's Black Knight spring to mind.
ha!!
Feb 24, 2012
0
#113
Anybody who defends these people's actions are completely out to lunch.
The worst is when there in a winning position for either side with a simple pawn up, and the accuracy required is tremendous - the opposing forces only have a few seconds left- and they clock jock a draw, or win on time.......that person is clearly not playing chess...in my opinion......
They may as well be corckblocking
Feb 24, 2012
0
#115
Most of time I will resign in a situation where my opponent has more material than I if there is no chance for me to win by time or to stalemate easily, but if that same opponent decides to make a snide comment about my style of play then i will stay online for the entire time. It is petty, but sometimes all ya got left is petty.
Feb 24, 2012
0
#116
brownieman wrote:
mobambo wrote:
. To me, not resigning and other bad sportsmanship is similar to when a murderer gets off scott free because of some technicality in the law.
Wow...that's a bit strong..no? I have never thought myself to be in the company of murderers if I make an attempt (usually unsuccessfully) to gain a draw...or perhaps win by time.
Winning by time when normally you would lose. that is the "technical" game that others were talking about
personally I like to play for fun, win or lose. I normally play out the entire game just to play it out. You play it out to win on some dumb technicality.
Time..and the 'clock' are absolutely part of the game of chess...just as important as whatever 'tactics' you have in your possession. I will intentionally play quickly at the start of a game just so I have time in my favor if it turns out that we are pretty equal in skill level. Anyone who discounts the importance of the 'time factor' has certainly not mastered all the fime points of chess.
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?
Even worse. IN theoretical drawn positions, chess-com allows morons to play on, winning on time. E.g., K + B vs K
Stop doing that, people. It is a true shame
By the way, this sort of problem is not unique to chess. The "mercy rule" is an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_rule
For example: "In international baseball competitions sanctioned by the IBAF, including Olympic competition and the World Baseball Classic (WBC), games are currently ended when one team is ahead by 10 runs."
Such rules are very rare, but it saves everybody tons of time and trouble. Of course, it would be much nicer if the loser showed good sportsmanship and resigned at a reasonable moment.
melvinbluestone wrote:
Michael-G wrote:
The decision about resigning belongs to the player himself and not to his opponent.I agree that it is disrespect to demand resignation because you have a winning position.Personally I don't mind at all playing winning positions(unfortunately it rarely happens, lol).
This is the key point that makes all this whining about opponents who don't give up at the other players convenience absurd. Even more to the point: What's the difference why the other guy keeps playing?? You already know the rules when you begin a game: you keep playing until someone's mated or till one player decides to resign...... not when the other player decides for him. Some people get really good positions and then they forget the rules they already know: "Oh, that's it. I've got a great game going here. This jerk should just resign. Why do I have to do the work of finishing this thing?" A lot of the posts I've read address the psychological reasons for playing on in "hopeless" positions. Some of these explanations are interesting...... but what's the relevance? What does it matter if an opponent keeps playing "just to annoy" you, or he wants to see how the mate is executed, or he really doesn't see that he's lost........ It should be meaningless to the other player. No one would ask why a computer doesn't resign (I know....some of them do, but most make you carry out the mate). If the other guy wants to keep playing, that's it: Game Not Over.
Nobody is claiming that a bitter-ender is violating the rules of the game. But a lot of questionable behaviour has been perpetrated under the guise of not actually violating the rules. Even if we just confine the discussion to the realm of sports. There's no rule, for example, against stealing signs in baseball, but it's still considered cheating by many people, and even an umpire will warn against it. There's also no rule against a batter stopping to admire the towering home run he just hit, but is the pitcher not supposed to be pissed off in that situation? Or how about in poker: there's no actual rule against a slow roll, but it's still considered an insult.
And BTW, I recall Walter Browne annotating a grandmaster game in Chess Life where one player was playing on a piece down, and Browne remarked "To play out such a position against a GM is an insult". Yes, those are GMs, but since the same rules of chess apply to them, why did Browne make any comment at all?
Baby .. I just will say never surrender .. even you has only your king .. I was in atournment and in the middle of game my opponent offered draw I accepted it and losing competition .. I did not know the system of points..
Then take an example .. Me playing to Fritz 12 ..
It made it draw no solution no way to win for me even I had 2 Queens ^^
I wonder what our founding fathers could have been thinking when they passed the bill of technicalities (The first ten amendments to the US Constitution).
Time management is part of the game. If you obtain an advantage by taking more time than your opponent early in the game, I don't see how you can call it a technicality when he wins on time.