Your Opponent Won't Resign Be Creative!

We're talking about a game where people know 25+ moves of the Ruy Lopez but can't do king+pawn endgames. You really shouldn't be suprised by people not resigning.

Who cares if they resign or not.

'' When My Opponent does not wants to Resign, and he is lost there, my worry is a Blunder. ''

Melvin when you are playing a team and the team has been dead lost for months and the team has enough chess knowledge to know they are dead lost and the team just plays on and on until check mate--this is a team you never want to play against again.  Because they know better.

And if towards the end you want to put some life into the game and make it interesting for your own team--this is NOT toying with the guy [or team] to bolster my [or my team's] overblown "superiority complex" and this is NOT poor sportsmanship!

If someone or some team has to endure another team playing in an unreasonable  way instead of just enduring the many extra meaningless moves to be creative even if it costs a move or two is a way to make the game interesting.

And when you do this you have to make sure you do not end up losing--that is part of the making the game interesting. One thing you should never do is to give your opponent a whole bunch of "if" moves. 

if you want to say it is bad sportsmanship because you add a additional couple of moves to the game-compare this to an opponent who has already added more than 20 unneeded moves.   

Melvin, while I have not hardly run accross this personally, because I play very high rated players, there are millions of examples of players playing out a completely lost game and also taking as much time as allowable including vacations etc when they are just about to be mated--there are enough of these kinds of chess players that if you create something different and it takes a couple of moves more--do you really think the person who created something different is the one showing "bad sportsmanship"?  

Now if this is not your "cup of tea" to be creative in a situation like this-then simply do not do it--BUT do not call players who do this as  showing "bad sportsmanship"

I would go further and say that there is likely a correlation between players who find your statement controversial and those who don't. The stronger the player, the less likely they will find it controversial.

Jamie guy  yes, I would agree with that!

You don't have to make unexpected moves to use your creativity.

Chess is one of the most creative games and if u can win with your opponent you prove your creativity.

Yes, chess is an environment where you can use your creativity. But the thing is--it is very often an unexpected move which shows your creativity.

If you always make or very usually make expected moves then often you are missing something in the creativity department.

Just to give one example:  I helped prove that a 4th move by White which has been played for decades and also by grandmasters and super grandmaster--is not sound.  Not that is creativity!

As we all know time is valuable to most people. Those who use your time out of spite are people who you never again want to play against.

Fortunately it rarely happens to me but there are millions of situations where a player is upset because he is losing and then delays the game and also plays to check mate--not to learn anything but just out of spite.

Now when this happens of course you can just play to check mate--that is fine BUT if you wish to add some creativity and fun to the game--that is your choice. And if you make that choice and it costs a couple of extra moves--that is NOT bad sportsmanship.

By the way when I mentioned in a forum that the particular 4th move which has been played for decades by masters and grandmasters and super grandmasters-- was unsound and probably losing I was told that I must have a very very high ego and sense of self importance  to state such a move which has been played by very top level players for decades-is unsound.

The assumption was that it was not possible to find such a situation on the 4th move for White and thus anyone who claims differently must be an egotist. [or deluded]

Good players know when to resign, and they do .   Most people who play on in clearly lost positions are hacks or jerks and sometimes both . 

Personnally, I would be a little more careful to jump to conclusions. Suggest not always to suppose a spiteful motiv. Obviously, a "clearly lost position" is seen by a GM much further ahead than a beginner can possibly evaluate the same situation on the board.

I know plenty of people who refuse to resign for the sake of "hoping that you learn something that way." Usually it's just sour grapes... funny checkmates are a good response :) Thanks for this post.

Speilkalb. we are talking about good players.  The statement Reb made has to do with good players.  Of course if you are just starting out and you are playing somebody who has a low rating, it is fine to play to check mate.

Players who reach a certain level can know when a position is "clearly lost or not"  Just to give an example--you are playing a master and you have an end game with king and 3 pawns vs king and that person makes you play to mate--then clearly he knew better and probably spite was the reason.

True, but certainly even a beginner should see that a lone king vs. king, queen, rook, and a few pawns, or even a lone king vs king+queen is a clearly lost position and there's no need to keep playing.  I personally don't mind if they make me play through to checkmate, but a lot of players get a bit peeved about it.

It is one thing in a quick game to play to check mate and it is a whole different thing in say a game where one move in made every three days.

If you are playing an individual or a team and say it is one move every two days and that individual or team has shown that he/they are very good players and you get the better of that individual or team in a chess game and then there is a play to mate, when the game is absolutely hopeless, then for sure, in my opinion, this is not good sportsmanship and you can endure it if you have a mind to endure this or, if you wish, you can make something that is otherwise unpleasant--into something interesting and at least pleasant for you.  

Since this kind of situation happens fairly often, it is nice to have a resource other than just your endurance.

This great if you were to iliminate to Team Match part of this situation. Points are a factor and several ways to get points without mate. Way too many to list and review here at the moment.

Now if your just talking about your games and they are not related to a Team Match. It is not right but a better player in losing situation might not resign. I figure if around 5-10 moves to being mated and it is obvious just resign. When face to face we tilt our king to show we are resigning in a game. Need something like that here. Maybe a button to enable "Resign and Rematch" for the sender to opponent losing. The reciever would have the option to just resign or both. Problem fixed.

Actually, I am not sure of or do not understand "points" as a factor. Please enlighten me?

But what if you do not want a rematch.?

I used to use what is known as the doubling cube.  If you are playing a game using the doubling cube at any point in the game you can say "DOUBLE!" at that point your opponent has two options: 1. he can resign on the spot and thus lose the game or 2. he can play on for double stakes but if he wins or draws--it counts as 2 wins for him.

And also, your opponent, at any time has the resource of "REDOUBLE!" which means he thinks he is going to win and now you are playing for 4 wins or losses with the same rules.[ he can quit with a 2 game loss or play one for a 4 game result]  by the way you can make also a rule to stop at "REDOUBLE!" and there is no "REDOUBLE DOUBLE!"

When is it appropriate to resign in blitz games? If I think I can get a win or draw due to time(or create enough complications to cause my opponent to blunder because of time pressure), I tend to keep playing.

The only time I'll drag a game out just for the sake of dragging it out is when someone seems more interested in making insults than in playing chess.

Blitz games are a whole different story. You can win in blitz with one pawn when your opponent has Q and R and B and 5 pawns and you are about to be mated. [which is one of the reasons I don't like blitz]

I had a game a game yesterday and this was a 15 minute game which is blitz to me where I had 5 seconds left and a mate in 1 against my opponent and I picked up my queen to mate and accidently there was a slip and the queen stopped one square too short and I lost.