Would You Resign In this Position (It's still going on now)

@captaintugwash if someone is goon enough to convert, they will convert. Resigning isn't necessary. Also of you're able to blunder a bishop, chances are so is your opponent.

I see thanks. And on the other question...Shall we agree to disagree?

Resigning lost games is "necessary" for me for a few reasons... I don't like to play chess when I know I'm lost, also I tend to play more than one game at a time and prefer to focus on those games where I have realistic chances. I'm sure during my life I've resigned a handful of games that I might have saved if I played on, but had I played on I would have less time to analyse my other games and that increases the chances of making a mistake in an equal or winning position.

People can do as they like. I don't complain when someone plays to checkmate, because they have every right to do so. But that doesn't mean I'll waste my time playing out lost positions.

@nickhanne how could one possibly turn down such a polite request.

@captaintugwash I play very quick time controls so I'd say about 50% of losing positions I convert to winning.

If we're talking about bullet or blitz, then it's a different matter. We can flag our opponent or he can blunder due to time trouble. 

@captaintugwash I don't play much daily chess, I don't have enough faith in it to be totally honest. If I lose I never know if I've truly lost, if you know what I mean.

That is a kind response thank you. Just for clarity (as you rightfully don't seem to mix your words) on my 3rd time of asking i still don't really know i'm afraid and genuinely ask again if you are happy to agree to disagree?

Fair enough. On the other hand, I don't play much blitz because I'm just not very good, I make way too many mistakes.

Like I said, I was simply expressing my opinion, but you feel obliged to put me down every time.

@snudoo it's whining when you complain that someone won't resign.

I never said I was complaining. I was simply stating my opinion on the matter:

"I take slight offense when people don't resign in clearly lost positions..." 

Not:

"Why don't people resign, it's so annoying"

63 b7+ @nickhanne

@snudoo the taking slight offence is the thing I have issue with. It's such a ludicrous notion.

Am I not able to express my opinion on the matter without you belittling it?

Anyways, I hope we can just agree to disagree without insulting each others views.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's one I think is ludicrous and in the minority. I'm really shocked to hear you say you get offended when an opponent doesn't resign.

You're shocked to hear my opinion? Usually I don't mind people not resigning, especially if both players are in mutual time trouble, and I don't care whether or not people resign in bullet (unless they lose their queen somehow), but if the person with much more material and a better position has enough time (around 3 mins or more) then yes, I do take a slight offense. 

It doesn't happen often, but around 2000 blitz (I play 10 mins, so there's more than enough time) if my opponent drops two pieces somehow and doesn't resign, then that's a situation where I'd get slightly annoyed. 

It's not anything big, like I'm typing in the chat "bro why don't you resign". It just makes me wonder why my opponent is continuing to play; if they somehow manage to win, then it really wouldn't be much of an achievement, and if they lose, then why did they spend that much time playing on? If the opponent wanted to get better, then they already know what went wrong, and so just make a mental note not to do it next time, and play another game.

However, if the opponent is playing on a couple pieces down then I wonder if they just like to make themselves suffer or something. Especially if the win is relatively easy; i.e. K+R+P vs K+P.

I'm shocked that you would get offended or annoyed. That's what shocks me. If they win from a losing position of course it's an achievement. If they lose, we'll they'd have lost by resigning. If a checkmate is easy you should be able to easily convert it.

I hope you are able to see my view; you don't have to agree with it, but I just hope you can see where my logic is coming from. 

Winning from a completely losing position is hardly an achievement in my opinion because it can only happen if your opponent suddenly disconnects (happened once) or you set up a cheapo. It something to laugh about, but I wouldn't call it an achievement.

At some point there's a certain expectation for players of XXX strength. For example, I think you can find maybe... zero 2000+ players who are unable to convert the win consistently. For that reason, it saves time for both the losing side and the winning side to simply resign.

Of course it's an achievement. After all every victory is borne out of a blunder, you can't lose either out making an error in the first place. But there is no way that having to achieve checkmate should annoy of offend you.