Why don't players resign?
Sort:
Mar 4, 2012
0
#122
I don't worry about it. If they stall too long i will just resign and play someone else. I still won the game from my view and rating means nothing once you played a few decades.
BLAH- BLAH-BLAH...STOP YOUR WHINING!!!!!!!!!! YOUR OPPONENT IS WELL WITHIN HIS/HER CHESS PLAYING RIGHTS TO,AS YOU SAY, STALL FOR TIME.WHETHER TO USE THAT TIME TO STUDY AN ENDING OR SIMPLY JUST TO PERFORM A SO CALLED LAST ACT OF DEFIANCE,ITS STILL THEIR CHOICE. SO COWBOY UP AND DEAL WITH IT OR JUST SIMPLY STOP PLAYING THE GAME ALTOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 4, 2012
0
#124
MINGKA wrote:
BLAH- BLAH-BLAH...STOP YOUR WHINING!!!!!!!!!! YOUR OPPONENT IS WELL WITHIN HIS/HER CHESS PLAYING RIGHTS TO,AS YOU SAY, STALL FOR TIME.WHETHER TO USE THAT TIME TO STUDY AN ENDING OR SIMPLY JUST TO PERFORM A SO CALLED LAST ACT OF DEFIANCE,ITS STILL THEIR CHOICE. SO COWBOY UP AND DEAL WITH IT OR JUST SIMPLY STOP PLAYING THE GAME ALTOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
another strawman arguement
Sometimes I play on until checkmate in a knight and bishop endgame because
(a)I suck at those mates and I want to see how they do it.
(b)If they suck at those mates I may draw.
Mar 5, 2012
0
#126
A city boy moved to the country and bought a donkey from an old farmer for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the mule the next day.
The next day, the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry, but I have some bad news. The donkey died."
"Well then, just give me my money back."
"Can't do that. I went and spent it already."
"Okay then. Just unload the donkey."
"What ya gonna do with him?"
"I'm going to raffle him off."
"You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"
"Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he's dead."
A month later the farmer met up with the city boy and asked, "Whatever happened with that dead donkey?"
"I raffled him off. I sold 500 hundred tickets at two dollars apiece and made a profit of $998."
"Didn't anyone complain?"
"Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."
Mar 5, 2012
0
#127
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?
This is what the forum is about if any of you bothered to look not that you should instantly resign in a losing position like some of you seem to act like it is and let me put emphasis on 2 queens and a king vs a king and stalled till he had no moves left then disconnected. So unless you think this way of playing is proper and in no way disrespectful quit attacking the guy and if you do think this is proper and not disrespectful please enlighten me!
CerebralAssassin wrote:
Yep.
Why not play a shorter game that doesn't allow enough time for stalling ? If the OP needs a longer game to think when it's his/her move, then don't complain about the other person.
It's a common misconception among n00B players that resigning is somehow unsportsmanlike, they don't know that it's considered stupid to continue on in a dead lost position and in some circles it's even thought to be just plain bad manners.
The 'boredom gambit' is unfortunately common as long as the player makes moves in a timely manner i dont mind i learned basic mating techniques by be crushed but delaying a game unnecessarily is very poor sportsmanship and painful too!
asmaaa wrote:
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 ^^
If I am not missing something, then when you played Fritz 12, you had the opportunity to just do Qxf6, twice.
I just played a one-minute game where my opponent left himself open to mate in one. I had about 24 sec left, and I just decided to give him the opportunity to resign, so I let my clock run. He then got pissed because I didn't mate him right away, and accused me of violating the fair play policy (he also claimed to be an admin, although there was no note on his profile attesting to such).
His hypocrisy was staggering. Obviously, he saw the mate soon after he played his last move. He could have resigned at any time. How is it not considered stalling by refusing to resign, yet I am stalling by waiting an entire 24 s before mating him?
In the previous game against him, we had a roughly equal position near the end of the game, but I only had about 3 seconds left while he had about 10. He then starts throwing his pieces away, knowing I can't possibly exploit the extra material and I am going to lose anyway. I consider this to be completely unsporting, even though it is technically legal. But it's apparently ok for Eashton to screw with me, yet I can't screw with him. I mention this because I think both games go hand-in-hand as examples of bad sportsmanship under the guise of playing within the rules.
Chris,
What? HE was the one who got mad because he had to wait FOR ME. I let my clock run down. Try and keep up and read the post before talking out of your posterior.
The reading and reasoning skills of some people on the site make me shake my head.
Any serious chess player will resign when down material in a position without counterplay.
Not to mention, with only a king versus king and queen. How irritating this is. Happens all the time. I wouldn't like to win on time, in such a situation (with only the king). A shame really
Apr 7, 2012
0
#140
If I had resigned every game that looked lost I would have missed out on heaps of draws I got from Stalemates.
Perfectly legal play that my opponents obviously weren't switched on about.
So anyone who expects me to resign or pressures me to resign can go take a jump...
The only time I will resign is if playing a very high rated player that I KNOW will be switched on and not allow a stalemate. But anyone under 1700 I will fight on against...
I had one guy swear at me once in a game for not resigning, I ended up getting a stalemate against him... which was far better than swearing back at him.
cookiemonster,
I'm not sure why you bothered to quote me, since the first part of your post is a non sequitur.
As for GM Browne's comment, it sounds like your are conceding my point. Unless you are trying to claim that only GMs are capable of routinely winning games a clear piece up. To which I would respond,
First, that's preposterous. Any player with the average OTB rating of 1500 should be able to win a game a clear piece up. Routinely. It wasn't that long ago when I found myself down a clear exchange to a 1700 player. He clearly knew how to win, SO I RESIGNED.
Second, no one is talking about expecting resignation in a pawn up rook ending or a bishop and knight vs. lone king ending. Reread the original post. OP cited a game where he was up TWO QUEENS vs. a LONE KING. That is the sort of position that we are talking about. And let me repeat myself again so we can stay on point: no one is saying that to play on in such a position violates the rules (I don't know why people keep bring up this strawman argument). What I am saying is that I consider playing on in such positions to be extremely rude. And obviously I am not alone in my opinion.