Your Opponent Won't Resign Be Creative!

It wasn't really addressed to your post. However, I would say that they are doing the same thing but to a different degree: although they don't think they will look bad at chess when playing those positions out, they want to look particularly good when they don't play them out. That would be a possible guess, anyway, and it seems to be your point indeed when you bring up the idea of a classy resignation.

If this is a case for arguing in favor of resigning, I would say the problem is that you are pre-supposing that not resigning is irritating/rude when that is the very thing we are still debating. I don't think playing on is ok simply because it's within the rules; I think it's ok because an opponent deserves full closure if he wants it, and also because it's part of the fight of chess, even if only a small one depending on the position.

For the record wafflemaster, I rather strongly agree with that post I am quoting of yours; notice how it isn't changing my position

 "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'm a 1900 player OTB, and I believe there is some work in winning K+Q or up four pawns, just not a particularly large amount of it. I still have to be conscious of, when I check his king with my queen, that I'm not hanging it; sometimes moving the queen too far towards the king can create stalemate possibilities -- again, something I need to be conscious of. Moreover, with the four pawns, I still have to do systematic work to make sure I'm not trivially hanging pawns and continue to get rid of my opponent's counterplay. I wouldn't say it requires skill as much as it requires discipline. It may be a tedious task to some, but I embrace it. The reasons why four pawns is such a large advantage has inherent logic to it, and I don't mind demonstrating that logic to my opponent.

I guess I just think that there is no problem with having to play a tedious position. If it makes the struggle harder, even only in the sense that you have to be focused on a tedious but easy position, I think it's still a worthy edition to the full struggle of winning a game.

So, let's say I consider a won game of chess to be a "piece of work." I feel like I'm in the office when playing a game of chess, and yet I somehow love it! Some people love their work and find it rewarding

You still seem to be assuming that a person who plays on thinks he has a decent chance to hold the game. What you don't consider is that the person who plays on thinks there is an extremely low chance of saving the game but knows he won't be worse off if the miracle doesn't happen.

I will admit, I simply can't grasp the idea of politeness having anything to do with making life easier for the opponent in a competition -- it's like saying that you're a jerk if you decide to play a good move instead of making life easier for your opponent by playing a blunder.

I would even argue that it is this very idea of not making life easier for the opponent that makes the challenge and fight of competition what it is. Anyone who likes that in its purest form has my respect. Anyone who wants to spend their time elsewhere can do so and quit if they so choose, and I respect that as well.

And as far as complimenting the opponent -- I would be a lot less subtle than having a practical game choice affected; I might consider actually telling my opponent what I think of his abilities.

Personally, I can't think of a greater waste of time than playing out K+Q vs. K on the losing side against a master. Nor something so boring.

I definitely have a different view on that scenario. I consider myself a fighting player, but having a bare K against K+Q -  respect to you, Elubas, but I fail to see how playing that out is a workout for the brain, and not a mindless activity where making moves randomly would lead to the same result with the same probability. I don't see what there is to consider. Even if my opponent makes a blunder and I get a draw, I would still feel like I lost that game because of that ending being so obvious lost and the fact that my opponent DOES know how to win it. I'd rather get right on to analysing the critical moments of the game and try and take something away from the game that I didn't know before.

I didn't read all nine pages but here is my creative game....

The point is in fact precisely that you hardly can make random moves -- you are still thinking of a goal, and are carrying out a process to achieve it. Cornering the king with a queen is a simple one, but it's still a position, with a step by step process on how to win it. I still need to be conscious of things like what is protected and what would hang my queen. Again, easy, but I need to be conscious of something while I carry it out.

I probably wouldn't play out a queen down against a master either, because it probably wouldn't be that fun (as the losing side), but I totally understand the logic of there being no net loss to anyone who does play it out, despite how unlikely it is to save the position.

I'm not talking about what I would do, or when I would resign -- that misses the point. Everyone has a different view of when they find things "truly hopeless," and if they have a sincere reason to back it up, I'm not going to say my choice of resignation is any better than theirs. Merely different.

"respect to you, Elubas"

Hey, as long as there is respect everything is good!

While I'm glad to see that an 1100 rated player didn't resign, I'm sorry to see that person so abused here.

There's a world of difference between a player rated +1800 not resigning and a novice not resigning.

There should always be respect for other people's points of view! Anyway, I agree with all of this, but find the part about it being possible to justify playing out K+Q vs. K with there being no net loss a bit odd  - I find the idea of choosing to do things for "no net loss" a bit bizarre, kind of like choosing to spend a whole day just sitting in a chair doing absolutely nothing, which again, loses nothing, unless you count time. There certainly seems to be no possible gain from playing out the ending on the losing side, as a decent chess player of course. But it's just different viewpoints again I guess!

Well, there might not be a gain, but if there's not a net loss, you're not risking anything. Except your time of course, which is, again, up to the player deciding whether or not to resign. When I say no net loss, I am referring to results.

I would go even further about positions having logic -- even two rooks vs king has logic. It's simple logic, it's a simple plan to win, but it's still a plan -- you're still finding a way to trap the enemy king.

That's what's great about chess -- every position can be considered its own puzzle to be solved in a book of an unlimited amount of puzzles.

Elubus you are guessing wrong per most of the players motives in resigning early.  It is not because they want to "look good" because in my correspondence games nobody is going to see those games except maybe 40 years after. [when I happen to join chess.com]

I think if you understood my point better you would make better guesses as to the motives of players who seem to resign early against me?

Also, I would like to address your assertion that playing on in a totally lost game does not result in a net loss.  It does result in a net loss of most humans valuable time.  Time = money some even say.  Time is valuable and when someone delibertly wastes your time by playing out a totally lost position when they know you can win that position easily--they are giving you a net loss--your loss of very valuable time.

You cannot reasonably just say there is not net loss per results as that implies the net loss or win is all that counts.

It's clear we have different views on what constitutes a waste of time. I don't think it's fair for me to have to give in to my opponent's opinion on what is a waste of time and what isn't.

You might ask, but then is it fair for me to pursue my idea of what's a waste of time above my opponent's opinion by playing it out?

I view rules as a tie-breaker of that. Sort of like how we can have laws in a government that not all of us agree with. Maybe you agree or disagree with gun control, but as compromise for living in the country, in a world of differing views, you accept that if you are caught violating a law pertaining to that, you will be punished.

Indeed, the only thing that is beyond opinion in chess are the objective ways in which the game is ended, such as checkmate or stalemate.

Ah, but the rules of chess apply to chess, they do not apply to life. 

There is a chess rule, however, that does apply. It is the chess rule that one can resign and one of the reasons for that rule is to not waste someone's time in playing out a completely lost game.

While you do not have to give in to some other person's idea of what a waste of time is--clearly to that other person--making them play out a completely lost game [your completely lost game] does affect the other person even if it does not affect you personally.

Like I said, the converse is for me to go against what I believe, which is unfair as well. Ultimately, when you are arguing that people should resign, this is what you are urging them to do.

I am not even urging people to resign who show badsportsmanship as very often those people are a lost cause. 

You misunderstood my message if you thought I was urging people to resign.

1. I was showing one of the things a person can do when he is confronted with a player who plays on in a completely lost game. Instead of sitting there and losing your valuable time to this inconsiderate person--instead be creative!  Thus you will enjoy this part of the game rather than having to endure...

2. Who knows, maybe when the person delaying the game sees that the tables are turned and now it is you who is having the fun--maybe, just maybe, he will get an understanding of what he is doing?

3. My other point was that in stark  contrast to people who refuse to resign a completely lost game--there are players on the other end of the spectrum who will show a little class and respect for their opponen'ts game by resigning in a positon most would not realize they were lost but they realize they are lost.

Too often we see the people who delibertly make the game not enjoyable but seldom do we see the people who show respect to their opponent by a very early resignation when they are theoretically lost.

If a beginner plays on to the final move in a 30 minute game that is one thing. If an experienced player rated say 2000 or above plays on to the final move in a correspondence game thus holding up the results of a tournament for 14 players that is a whole other thing.

Each player has the right to determine when it is inconsiderate for your opponent to play on to the final move. It is a matter of degree.

If a player delibertly disrupts a tournament or a game by playing on to the final move [very often out of spite because he is losing] then he certainly deserves the label "inconsiderate" and deserves no respect.

Because you are a chess player does not earn automatic respect. Because it is in the rules that you can play to mate and you do so also does not earn automatic respect.  It all depends on several factors if an opponent is respected or not. 97% might be respected but 3% mighto not make the grade.

In my own particular situation in my hundreds of correspondence games 100% of my opponents made it into "respectulvilles"

However I have had a few games, 15 minutes per player for the whole game where an opponent was about to be mated--say mate in 1 and that person just lets the clock run out for say 9 minutes.  That person, in my opinion, does not earn the lable of "respect"  So in my 15 minute per player games only about 95% of my opponents do I "respect" 

"Respect" is earned. However, at the start of any chess game my opponent gets my respect auntomatically unless and until he does something to lose my respect.  He earns the "respect" by just playing through and finishing the game in a normal fashion.

It seems to me that this is just another thread designed to show that "we" are superior to others.

If a player is rated U1500, they probably shouldn't be resigning. And if they are rated U1500 they should be working on their technique in won games, not proving how superior or "creative" they are.

So many threads here berating other people's lack of sportsmanship only point out their own lack of etiquette and respect.

There was nothing in the thread where it was said it was wrong for an under 1500 player to play to the end although I do not agree that it is so beneficial for a 1400 player to play to check mate.

Also, the purpose of the thread has been to show techniques and instances of good sportsmanship and also to show what can be done so a player can enjoy his game if he runs into a bad situation. 

The stuff about bad sportsmanship was brought up by people who were not understanding the thread. They were trying to say that being creative was bad sportsmanship and that is simply not true.

Because this is a new idea and some people automatically do not like new ideas and thus they were attacking the idea as bad sportsmanship.  And when quizzed about motives they showed they did not understand the concept and automatically assigned bad motives to the concept. 

Also, when examples were given of good sportsmanship they attacked that and assigned motives to the players who showed good sportsmanship which were simply not true.   

Also, the purpose of the thread is not to show any kind of superiority-this is reading bad motives again when it is simply not true.

The two main purposes, have been outlined.