Quit whining! It is your job to deliver the mate. Some people think it is enough to obtain a winning position. It is not. The game isn't over until it ends. He is not pathetic. You are.
why people dont give up?
Sort:
Maybe they want to practice endgames. Maybe they have enough material left to checkmate you, maybe they think you don't know how to checkmate with only a rook, maybe you are behind on the clock... etc etc, plenty of reasons why they can decide to keep playing on.
Jan 12, 2014
0
#4
Hi PLZZZBEGENTLE! Hope you are fine :-)
I have to admit, I often continue games to an extend which maybe fits your description. Queen, two towers.. ok. Thats maybe a bit much, but if I loose a queen, i will continue. Sometimes I win those games! I have the impression that players often start to play as if they have won already and make mistakes.
Somehow I like the feeling that I keep fighting, even if the opponent is stronger. I give up at the moment where i see that the opponent has enough points and enough time to win, and i won't have any chance at all.
What do you think?
Greetings!
If that were the case, there would be a mercy rule in chess lol
Play to the end ...... Chess is a win or Die Game. No prisoners or Pardons. If you can not produce a win ..... stop whinning and being a girly woss
Apr 10, 2014
0
#7
Funny...I was just about to ask you this exact question when you tried to win on time down 3 pieces...oh well you still got mated :)
Playing a lost game (time and material behind) its not only a waste of time for both players but unsportmanship. Only the begginers do that.
Stalemate
The game is not over till the last ball is bowled or last wicket is taken.....the game is not over till the king is mated...one may want to resign if one is in a lost position and there is no harm in that...but one cannot expect ones opponent to do so...they have every right to continue right till the very end....
Jul 1, 2014
0
#11
It is okay for beginners to do that. I tell beginners to resign only when they are confident in two things:
1) If the board was switched, they were given the winning side, are they 100% sure that they know how to give the mate? (If not, watch and learn!)
2) Do they respect their opponents skills enough to be sure that they konw how to get to mate?
Cause people are tryhards
I see it pretty simply:
My opponent is under no obligation to resign. Neither am I. He has the right to force you to demonstrate your win by playing to the end. Sometimes that end is stalemate, which is a victory in its own way for the losing side.
I resign only when my position feels truly hopeless. The "truly hopeless" point depends on the material deficit, what's left on the board, and how well he has played throughout the game.
I expect my opponent to play on until I have demonstrated I can win by mating him. If he resigns a lost position at anytime before that, he is simply indicating that he feels he has no hope left.
A few players will play right up til the end because the chance of stalemate is all the hope they need, regardless of how hopeless their position looks. That is their right. I have no bad feelings toward them if they choose to exercise that right.
Because most players are terrible at endgames. I have seen it so many times -- players with superior force (obtained by skill at tactics) never learned some of the basic endgame techniques.
Not only is it NOT unsportsmanlike to play on in an inferior position, I would argue that it is unsportsmanlike to tell an opponent that they should resign. If a person doesn't have the time or patience to play a game out to the bitter end, then that person should not have agreed to the time control.
It depends on both players levels and time control. In blitz playing on for an opponent's blunder is quite rational. If you really are good just mate them quickly. Another factor is seeing good endgame technique. If you are losing you may want to learn how to finish off the wounded. When I play on down massive material you can make me resign by eliminating counterplay. As long as counterplay is allowed it is Not over. "Gegenspiel Nichts!" is the way to force resignation. For long time controls (g30+) I think the loss of player time is a greater offense and failing to resign hopeless postions is more annoying. But if you want someone who has > 2% winning chance to resign you should take up a different passtime. The enemy's hope often comes from them not seeing you use proper endgame technique.
At 1st rate and above I believe one should assume both players are compentent. To assume C players and below don't mess up endgames is silly.
Jul 1, 2014
0
#16
Any player always has the right to play to mate. That being said, there is an ettiquette in the chess world that as you rating increases, you will learn.
I am about 1700 in slow chess as well as USCF. If I am playing a 2000 player, and am down a piece in a slow time control game, I will resign unless I have some tactical shots available to me. I have found that a reasonable early resignation might get me some tutoring time in a post-game analysis. Playing till mate WILL get me a cold shoulder.
I play on in lost positions, not to mate, but in lost positions yes.
Whether you play on in a particular position depends on your skills and your perception of your opponent's skills. I will sometimes play on in a position that I think is lost when I believe that my opponent is an inferior player and will likely blunder. Sometimes I play on because i don't realize that I have lost. There have been many games where I have missed a 1 move mate and have been surprised when my opponent makes the winning move and ends the game!
I do agree that it is poor manners and a waste of time to continue playing when you are 100% certain that the other player will win. While there is no rule requiring you to concede, nobody appreciates you wasting their time in the faint hope that the other player will disconnect or keel over from a heart attack before winning the mate.
They have lost queen, two towers, they have only king and pawns and play ....
Ok sometimes they obtain draw with pat but 1/200 or 1/300 games .. its just waste of time, they have lost 200hours of game for one pat
Chess is a strategic game you lost the strategic war, is useless to continue ..
im the only one who find this spirit pathetic???