I'm not hijacking anything...speaking of hijacking, one of the worst breakfasts I've ever had was on an airplane. At the time I'd almost wished that some hijackers would come and put me out of my misery.
It looked something like this, only worse:
...Except the veggies had sort of gray tinge to them. Blech...
I'm sorry that you don't understand my post...maybe if you read it a little more slowly, or say the words outloud while you're reading it will help. I assure you that it makes perfect sense.
Also, if you're going to be "sardonic" it behooves you to also be accurate. I didn't say anyone was "dumb". I said that the thread topic was "dopey". Dumb and Dopey, while related are not the same. To wit: "Dopey" was the name of one of the seven Dwarfs. "Dumb" was not. Simple, right?
But I digress, the simple point of my post, after my complaint about the OP's post being "dopey" but before my excursion into waffles, was that most players with OTB experience understand basic chess manners while many players who play only (or mostly) ONLINE don't get it. I also point out there are exceptions to resigning before mate, such as when Paul Keres generously allowed the young Bobby Fischer to adminster the "checkmate" over the board. I know that if you try really hard, and have a hearty breakfast you'll be able to follow along with my not very deep views on this matter.
In closing I'm trying really hard not to post a picture of a food item, but I can see that I'm about to fail. Damn it. 
I'd have to ask how I got in that situation. Since I don't usually play out losing endgames for dozens of moves just to resign 3 moves away from checkmate, one of the following would likely be true:
An internet bullet game - probably would not resign A sacrificial attack by my opponent in the middlegame - would not resign if I was up material. Unless the previous move by opponent was the "brilliancy" which forced mate, like a queen sacrifice, then I would resign. My decisions here are guided by how pretty the final position is.An interesting special case. What if you still had 30 minutes on your clock, to your opponent's 30 minutes, and you overheard your opponent on his cellphone say "man I've got to leave in TEN minutes or I'll miss my flight!". Would you resign then? Or would you just go get a drink of water, go back to the board, and wait.................
lol... that was good explanation. Let me put in a short... IT DEPENDS
I'm not hijacking anything...speaking of hijacking, one of the worst breakfasts I've ever had was on an airplane. At the time I'd almost wished that some hijackers would come and put me out of my misery.
It looked something like this, only worse:
...Except the veggies had sort of gray tinge to them. Blech...
Hm, that actually looks pretty good to me (admittedly though the gray factor is a decided deficit)...
I have to admit that even after all of my years flying here and there I always get kind of excited when they bring the food. But I've learned my lesson and usually back a sandwich. Mmmh sandwich...
Oh, right...back. So, I was watching this show "top chef" and there was episode where they had to make airplane food for contest. It was pretty intense, they had to prepare everything to fit in these little sized boxes and it had to cook in like 7 minutes. The one thing that stands out in my memory of that was this one chef used "broccolini" as his veggie. Now I really like me some nicely cooked greens, but Tom Collicchio, the head judge, said: "In all my years and meals here on top chef, that is the single worst thing I've eaten." Ouch.
Oh that's wonderful (God, I love cheesecake)...
It's really a beauty isn't it? The color of the cake is amazing. However the Graham cracker crust just sets the thing off wonderfully. This crust is the foundational perfection from which the cheese cake's lusciousness exudes it's creamy perfection. Excuse me, I need a moment to collect myself.
So that's...a broccoli and zucchini hybrid or something? (double ouch).
Oh no, it's more of a mini broccoli. Very thin stalks and but with a nice floret. The flavor is very much the same as traditional broccoli, but the stalks are so much thinner and easier to get through. Because they're thinner you can avoid the problem of over-cooking the florets on regular broccoli while trying to get the stalks cooked to sufficient tenderness. It's a foodies food :)
Hm...a most welcome improvement indeed. :)
You are truely a gentleman and a scholar. I don't care what everyone else says about you.
look at it this way: you spent the time and brainpower planning a series of moves, and you don't even get to present them. I'd understand resigning because the mate was far away,...but three stinkin moves? It seems disrespectful to have your plan cut short like that, and I believe resigning under such surcomestances conflicts with the object of the game. The true object of chess is not to get your opponent to give up,...it is to checkmate the king. A checkmate will always be visible to a good player, and if we keep resigning once we see it, checkmate, the true win, never comes to be.
I do understand what you are saying but I came away from your post thinking perhaps one of the objects of the game is to get your opponent to give up.
I've never really considered it an objective before. Although since the option to resign is one way of winning built into the game, it obviously is an objective. I'm not sure how to operationalize it though. I suppose it might come into play more in a series of games against the same opponent.
On the other hand, a resignation is a prediction. Yogi Berra said, "It's hard to make predictions...especially about the future."
However, I predict OrangeHonda will say something about not resigning in order to see a unique checkmate. It's a thought I hadn't considered.
If it's a really pretty/unique mate, I'd probably let them play it. If it's a run-of-the-mill type of thing, I'd just resign.
If they're obvious moves, I'd resign. If the mate involves some non-obvious move, maybe kicking off with a sacrifice, I'd play on, then resign only after the sacrifice/hard to spot move.
if you resign every time the move is obvious or very good, and forced, then when does checkmate actually happen? is it only when you don't see it coming?
I can tell you're new, so let me say welcome to the world of chess! It's a wonderful game, but be careful it can be addicting 
if there was inevidable checkmate, I would resign. Why should I wait it out?
you should wait it out so the objective, checkmate NOT resignation is completed. i've been playing chess before I knew a chess communitiy even existed. I learned the rules from the manuel that came with the board. Nothing ever said it is proper to give up, once a mate in inevidable. This is just me, who doesn't go to tornaments(doesnt want to), isn't a wise old person, and doesn't study chess, but the point of the game is checkmate, period. It doesnt matter how highly rated you are, grandmaster or no grandmaster, you can't change that fact. Resignation is the chess community's invention ( not chess.com,(i love this site), the chess community). I dont think it has always been such a popular option, and the fact that people go so far as to call lack of resignation improper, seems veeeery topsy turvy to me..
Checkmate is like a breakfast cake...sweet.
Two layers of egg, sausage, bacon, cheese quiche with country gravy in between, topped with gravy icing garnished with bacon bits.
you should wait it out so the objective, checkmate NOT resignation is completed. i've been playing chess before I knew a chess communitiy even existed. I learned the rules from the manuel that came with the board. Nothing ever said it is proper to give up, once a mate in inevidable. This is just me, who doesn't go to tornaments(doesnt want to), isn't a wise old person, and doesn't study chess, but the point of the game is checkmate, period. It doesnt matter how highly rated you are, grandmaster or no grandmaster, you can't change that fact. Resignation is the chess community's invention ( not chess.com,(i love this site), the chess community). I dont think it has always been such a popular option, and the fact that people go so far as to call lack of resignation improper, seems veeeery topsy turvy to me..
You are a noobie, plain and simple. You are free to follow the rules and allow yourself to be checkmated if that's what you like; perhaps you're a maschocist; or perhaps you're true novice and you need to learn how to finish off games that's fine. All players are free to follow the rules as they see fit.
However you're still a noobie and the COMMUNITY defines what are proper manners and what are not proper manners. You are foolish to say we should wait it out for checkmate. The obect of the game is win, or secondarily to not lose (draw). How those means are achieved are UP TO THE PLAYERS INVOLVED. Learn more before preaching to a community that you don't really know that well because your "know it all" attitude is making me, and I guess some others sick.
you're harsh.
you should wait it out so the objective, checkmate NOT resignation is completed. i've been playing chess before I knew a chess communitiy even existed. I learned the rules from the manuel that came with the board. Nothing ever said it is proper to give up, once a mate in inevidable. This is just me, who doesn't go to tornaments(doesnt want to), isn't a wise old person, and doesn't study chess, but the point of the game is checkmate, period. It doesnt matter how highly rated you are, grandmaster or no grandmaster, you can't change that fact. Resignation is the chess community's invention ( not chess.com,(i love this site), the chess community). I dont think it has always been such a popular option, and the fact that people go so far as to call lack of resignation improper, seems veeeery topsy turvy to me..
Some other rules that may trip you up, not being on your hasbro rule sheet. En-passant is legal, it's not a french-only rule. You can have more than 1 queen when promoting. You don't have to say check when checking someone. It's legal to castle long if your rook moves through an attacked square, as long as your king doesn't. King + bishop can't checkmate a lone king. King + knight can't checkmate a lone king. The king can't move to a square that's attacked by a pinned piece... yes even though the piece is pinned and wouldn't be able to move. Kings can't be on adjacent squares, and stalemate is a draw, yes even if you have a bunch of queens and all they have is their king, it's a draw if they can't move and they're not in check.
look at it this way: you spent the time and brainpower planning a series of moves, and you don't even get to present them. I'd understand resigning because the mate was far away,...but three stinkin moves? It seems disrespectful to have your plan cut short like that, and I believe resigning under such surcomestances conflicts with the object of the game. The true object of chess is not to get your opponent to give up,...it is to checkmate the king. A checkmate will always be visible to a good player, and if we keep resigning once we see it, checkmate, the true win, never comes to be.
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with that.
The true object of chess is to have fun, develop various skills involving your brainpower, meeting people, etc.
The true object of chess is very subjective, it depends on every player. Yhe reasons why I play chess might be very, very different from the reasons why you play chess.
Chess wasn't invented because of checkmate. Checkmate was invented because of chess. The true object of checkmate is to give an end to the game. And so is the true object of resigning.
None of those options should be annoying to anyone. Each player should use them at will, and their opponents accept their choice.
You are a noobie, plain and simple. You are free to follow the rules and allow yourself to be checkmated if that's what you like; perhaps you're a maschocist; or perhaps you're true novice and you need to learn how to finish off games that's fine. All players are free to follow the rules as they see fit.
However you're still a noobie and the COMMUNITY defines what are proper manners and what are not proper manners. You are foolish to say we should wait it out for checkmate. The obect of the game is win, or secondarily to not lose (draw). How those means are achieved are UP TO THE PLAYERS INVOLVED. Learn more before preaching to a community that you don't really know that well because your "know it all" attitude is making me, and I guess some others sick.
Okay, you may respectfully disagree, but don't insult me like that. I will make whatever thread I want saying what I want. There's no reason to call me a know it all, and foolish. Keep the thread friendly. I have not insulted anyones ideas, and just for the record I DID say, "This is just me, who doesn't go to tornaments(doesnt want to), isn't a wise old person, and doesn't study chess". That doesn't sound like a know it all attitude. Lastly, If I say you should wait for checkmate, that's only what I think, I shall SAY what I think no matter what, understand?
polydiatonic, please dont try to hijack the thread, if you dont want to argue, or see this thread, you can leave, I am NOT dealing with random breakfast pictures on every thread I make, that's not fair. nuf said... I do however, appreciate that you answered the question.