Your Opponent Won't Resign Be Creative!

Hi Smyslov, it was not a club, it was a very strong team, and if I had done that then I would not have had the opportunity to try and win without the forfeit.  

Hey i was an officer of a league. I did it with Honor and Integrity. At the beginning a tournament all rules are established only before the tournament. If there was any problems after the league has started an officer of the league was to settle the issue. If party A or B felt the officer could not settle it properly then it could fall to the captains to vote on the 2 more solutions presented to solve the problem which rarely occurs in a league. The officer more than likely comes up a good solution as most of the time they experience in leagues.

If the rules can change randomly then there are no rules. Why did they need a TD if they were going to change the rules.....  duh. The rule is ....they can change the rule if the wish(Rule #1?). Wonder is that rule 1 or rule 2 where you have to rember rule 1.

Sure sign of vacation abuse.

If during a game the first 5-10 moves the game is even and your opponent is moving fast. Then they blunder on say move 11. On move 12-13 they hope you did not see it or they can get out of it.

Now around move 15 your ahead by material and/or position and say at about move 20, almost forgot around move 15 they also slow down. Ok at about move 20 out of nowhere they take a vacation and it is not summertime or a holiday!

Now i can understand if your opponent has an overload of games i say 50+ games. Just pick a decent amount as it varies for each player. They may be tired and need a few days away from the game and online to fresh their mind. We all need that to play at our best or 100% of our current condition which may not be our best but good enough. Play here enough one knows the honest users of vacation vs the type that are abusers.

What you all say about what the team did when they were really hurting for time is correct and thus I did have a choice to win by forfeit or to let them break the rules and then find a way to win "over-the-board"  I was actually happy that the team was in so much trouble that they would even consider breaking the rules.

By the way if I were the TD and that happened I would have resigned my position or just have declared a forfeit.

This would have been very hard as the TD and each member of the team and I were all friends.

Very nice!  Great planning by Black...

lol

Part of these posts is hard to resign so I am going to give 2 cases of very classy "resigns"

You see, I just don't care about giving my opponent some perception about what I know. In other words, if there is something I understand about chess, it doesn't matter to me whether I allow my opponent to know that I understand it. If I see a mate in 7, I don't feel the need to resign to my opponent just so that he knows that I saw the mate in 7. If he decides to believe that I didn't see the mate in 7 simply because I allowed it to happen, it doesn't bother me. As long as I know I saw the mate in 7, I can be impressed with myself.

Got a survey ....... on Cool Aid

What is my current flavor?

 Think we have a winner! 

Rule in chess on how to lose. Making a move and hope your opponent does not see the way out the situation. Only one worse than that is making pointless moves.

If you see mate in 7 sure he/she will see it also. Or When it comes to mate in 5. Maybe make the pieces Invisible? Hey take that idea to Vote Chess and team will be in line to take you on all year. They see mate in 10-15 in a game. After 2-3 games sure you change your mind on that theory. Several teams tried that little theory, we had a good time with it in the End Game. Even our 1200 rated players joined in the game and comments. We had 2-3 pages each move.

Against a 2100+? If they can not see mate in 7 moves ..... they must have had too much around this time of year and sleepy. Does that trick still work against a GM.....nope. Hmmmm going tell him/her at the end of game i played it and maybe you did not see mate in 7. Bad habit. And if against a weaker player ...... that just speaks for itself.

Game 1 with Taylor in 1974. Taylor should have been in should not been able to be in a situation to win. If he played like that against players here in 2012 he would get crushed. First error was moving Knight twice so early in the game. That is more than enough tempo for white to end the game. It may take some time but game over unless white gives it back.

"If you see mate in 7 sure he/she will see it also."

Looks like an unclear assumption to me.

"Against a 2100+? If they can not see mate in 7 moves ..... they must have had too much around this time of year and sleepy."

I have no reason to assume the chance is 0%. It might be 0.001% of a chance for all I know, but not necessarily 0.

When you resign early, you exchange this small chance for an implication of your chess knowledge and abilities; but again, since I don't put any value on how my opponent interprets my ability based on my behavior on the chess board, I see no gain in that. I am not trying to make my opponent think that I am good at chess in a game; I am merely trying to win against him.

On getting an opponent to resign at the table. Easy. They could not get away with what they try here. 2 Popular methods come to mind. One snatch and grab(every thing free) pretty sure the other is obvious.

Lots of ways to lose in a chess game. There are also lots of ways to resign or end a game. One good way to lose in a chess game is to make pointless moves. 

People can resign when they are lost or can play on.  There can come a point where it could be considered unsportsmanship to play on...and the world turns... 

It could be considered unsportsmanlike to play on, by some, although murder could also be considered to be ok by some. Anything could be considered anything.

When higher rated players are losing to lower rated players they often offer a draw, and make it tricky, not resign on the spot.

And indeed, a possible motivation to play on is because you are higher rated than your opponent and think he could easily mess up.

But that's just one possible motivation. You could still play on even if you thought there was an extremely low chance of winning or drawing, too.

You may even see the forced win (for your opponent) in 42 moves. And yet, there is no penalty for seeking complete closure that the 42 move win you see actually occurs. If it does in fact happen, you are in the same boat as you would have been if you resigned instead.

well with the disconnect rate at chess.com it seems its always worth it to play on

The reason why some people resign is because they don't want to see the end. Sort of like, they suffered enough. Like when someone sacs his queen with a forced mate, they don't want to see the real end, so it's like they surrender.

$$$$

For players that do not like to resign when they about to be mated. I have an idea. Take your next pay check and go down to park where the chess hustlers and see how funny they find it waisting their time to end the game when they could be playing another. Will leaving a lot lighter than you went their and some pulling "    " out your pocket. Might even get verbal abuse.

This is first and only place where i know players do not resign. Says much about their character. Just makes your opponent put a serious whuppin on you in the next comes games. ......that is only in person. Online you get to decline a rematch not possible face to face.

Should be a icon for the game could have ended early by resign. I got 3 Queens on a buy in a game and still he did not resign. Over a year ago here all you had to do was be up about 15 pts in material and the resign was going to come soon. Now not only do they not resign they take all the time up to make a move. Obvious that person playing for a cheap win by Time Out.   Word gets around about this type player quick.