Obviously they are playing for a timeout. What is wrong with that?
Your Opponent Won't Resign Be Creative!
Sort:
If you resign because you are afraid people will think you are bad at chess, you care too much about other people's opinions about you.
You don't cash in an extra rook as some sort of "right to be resigned against." No, the extra rook is simply a means you have to win the game; that's what you use it for. If that means to win the game gives your opponent a feeling of inevitability, then he might choose to end it sooner.
The fact that his decision to do so incidentally resulted in convenience for you doesn't make that incident a natural right. You should be happy with no added convenience, although if serendipity happens to come your way, it's of course fine to enjoy that.
When I am up a rook I am prepared to show exactly how I win with it, even if that means mating my opponent. If I see a resignation then it will feel convenient for me, but I am more likely to say something like "Oh, good, my work is done," rather than "Yeah, it's about time." Hopefully this demonstrates what I mean in the third paragraph.
Now, while I think playing on is absolutely fine, is resigning, nonetheless, "extra nice?" Depends. Sometimes I simply feel bad for my opponent when he does it, because I feel like I would have had to focus to finish off the game if I had to continue. If on the other hand it's queen vs king or something like that, which is admittedly trivial, then, perhaps, yes, my opponent is "nicer than he has to be," which is of course nice.
And yet I totally respect any opponent, even a strong one, who wants closure and wants to make sure I don't have some final hallucination in the king and queen vs king position. Even if it takes out another 10 minutes of my life, I respect his right too much to have a problem with it in any way.
Now, if he is purposely taking a lot of time on the clock, simply because he wants me to sit at the board longer, then he really is wasting my time. If on the other hand he is sincerely trying to find the best move in the lost position (which is something only he will know for sure), then it's fine.
Winning by a time out. If your playing for money ok.
Other wise winning cheap. Bad habit and same players that wonder when their games go left field what happen. Looking for secret to playing good chess. Before online chess games end by Mate, Resign and Draw. Winning in a losing situation by time out needs fixed. Players tried to avoid losing using by Vacation. As soon as i see players name that was talked about doing this i will not play at all.
Easy way to fix players that win by time out in a losing situation....O pts awarded and they still get +1 added to the Lost column.
One thing i am glad about is that in Professional sports when a team is blowing out an inferior team at some point they bring in the backups. I said an inferior team. If it is a rival well they blow them out the water. The team losing does the same and bring in their back ups.
I know this has been talked about before about players not resigning. That must be the reason for messages that have games blowing out their opponents being sent more often. Some from players that have said very little about their games in the past. Looks like the only true solution. Hey it is fun to look at when waiting for a person to resign and time goes by so quick as i have gotten so many to look at and review.
Hey maybe i should be in favor of them not resigning, lol.
Well, we don't play games of infinite time, so playing to win on time is a good way of keeping the amount of time your opponent uses in check.
Hey i have to review this which way i should be thinking here.
Just realized i can benefit from this not resigning method. As i get to more games where players send these games where they used traps, patterns and etc. Used a similar one myself.
Hey "Do not resign" I repeat do not resign.
Need to review a game that was recently posted..... looks helpful. Not for his opponent.
The fact that some players use time outs and vacation just to annoy an opponent when they are about to be mated or when they are totally and completely lost--this IS a problem. Because it takes away one of the main reason people play chess--enjoyment of the game.
Of course playing in a blit or even a 15 minute per side game is an entirely different story.
Elubas, the games I have shown the players did not resign because "they were afraid people would think you are bad at chess". If you think that per the games I have shown, then you are missing the point.
I do not know of any good player who resigns because they are afraid people will think they are bad at chess.
Also, nobody has a "natural right" [whatever that is] that an opponent will resign when he is first theoretically lost.
Also there is a vast different between correspondence chess and the kind of chess which might take an extra 10 minutes to play out.
When you start out to drive a car 300 miles you know that it is possible to have an accident. You know this before you start to drive the car.
When you start a chess game, you know it is possible that someone will get irritated because they are losing and do things such as lengthen a game by adding vacations and timeouts and playing as slow as possible and not resigning when they are completely lost and making a game last an extra year while all the other games are finished--causing much inconveniece to everyone in the tournament--not just the one game is involved- you know all of this is possible but you are not going to give up chess over it.
However in such cases of excess there are things you can try to do about it.
Some common sense should apply. It is not reasonable for any opponent to lengthen a game as I described above. In situations as I described what they are doing is bad sportsmanship to the extreme.
On the other extreme, as I have shown there are some opponents who will show very good sportsmanship and good will by the way they resign.
These, are often very high ranked opponents but it can happen in any rating class...
One of the reasons most of us play chess is for the enjoyment of playing.
This is taken away in some situations by a few unsportsmanlike players.
Having said all of that, I am really speaking mostly for other players as in my games this has very rarely happened except in the relatively fast 15 minutes per move games.
melvinbluestone wrote:
What is so difficult about understanding, at the outset, that when you play a game of chess, you might have to mate your opponent to win the thing, and that holds true for the whole game. So the guy plays poorly and gets into a terrible position, but keeps playing. I knew before I started I might have to mate em', and I still do at any point in the game if I want to win. So he doesn't conveniently resign and save me the work. I knew that possibility was there before I started. Whether it's a 5 minute game or a two hour time control or whatever, your opponent has his time, and you have yours. You know this going into the whole thing. So what's all this griping and moaning about what you think is in the other guy's head or what his motives are for his conduct. I'm hearing a lot of sad tales about all these players getting these "overwhelming" positions and then they have to wait for their opponent, who sometimes doesn't obligingly throw in the towel when they want him to. Just win the game and move on.....
That's what you're clearly not capable of understanding... If there is any work whatsoever involved in "converting" a mate with K+Q vs. K or winning an ending up four pawns, I can't imagine how weak the players must be. "I knew before I started I might have to mate 'em" - how many games between GMs end in a checkmate? In your incoherent and ridiculous rant you go on to say that "he doesn't conveniently resign" and you have to grind out the win, or whatever... The key thing here is that in correspondence it can delay a tournament MONTHS if one jackass decides to be a melvinbluestone and test his opponent's "endgame technique" by playing out an endgame down a rook. If someone really wants to bother playing out to mate it's somewhat ridiculous, but acceptable as long as they don't waste time by doing it. "You agreed to the time control" is a stupid argument when your opponent spends two weeks to make his one legal move, receives your conditional, and spends another two weeks "thinking". The bottom line is that there is no work whatsoever involved in converting an advantage where your opponent's position is resignable, by definition. The only thing not resigning does in such a position is waste the time of both you and your opponent.
When I enter a conversation with someone, I know there's a possibility, and it's perfectly in their right, for them to be rude and violent and insane, but that doesn't mean when it happens that the reasonable reaction is to be ok with it.
That is to say, rude and irritating behavior is rude and irritating even if it's not specifically prohibited. This is self evident to any reasonable person.
There is such a thing as good sportsmanship and bad sportsmanship in chess and that is one of the things we are talking about here.
When, I showed some examples from real life of good sportsmanship in chess some posters here totally misunderstood the point.
ponz, your examples remind me a bit of Morphy's opponents - even when they could see that their position was resignable, it was worth playing those few more moves to show the spectators the finish 
I have played several games where I would have resigned and lost...but kept going. My opponent, in a rush to mate, blundered and the result was a stalemate, not a loss for me. There's always hope. As for the ones who drag it out forever, I count it as a win I will eventually get, and proceed with other games.
This is the mentality that shows people just don't get it :/ "there's always hope" or "I've managed to lose games where my opponent had a resignable position"...
Reshevsky, I am guessing your games were not correspondence games which may last a year or longer? Also, would be willing to guess that your games were not against masters?
That's why chess.com has a limit on vacation time...it's a mere 2 months. Not all opponents move fast. Like I said before, start around 10 new games and specify it to opponents who move very fast, not people who use all of their time. Like Dan Heisman said "If you're playing a correspondence game with 3 days/move use all of the three days!". Even if I don't follow it there may be some people who actually think a little more than others.
Timeouts are cheap, and I usually don't play it out unless my opponent has a timeout percentage higher than 0%. Also, if they would be putting themselves on vacation on purpose, that would be valuable vacation time wasted. As a diamond member I have to conserve my two months of vacation time and use it appropriately.
Now i know why i get so many messages showing a game where they crushed their opponent recently. Not resigning.
Looks like that is the creative method that has started and since they will not stop it will something good to look at while wait for an opponent to move that should resign.