Abandoning instead of resigning
Sort:
@Gummelflabes I usually wait to have too few pieces to realistically make a come back, then I resign. However I have had games (I'm at 800, and used to be much lower) where I didn't resign, then took advantage of a blunder, and won. It happens because 1) low ELO, 2) people tend to lose focus immediately after they capture your queen or take a big advantage.
But I rarely do it these days. It's quite rare to be able to overturn a completely losing position.
Chess is very much like capitalism. The more advantage you have, the easier it is to dominate and increase the difference. It is just not enjoyable to play when there's no hope, as opposed to a level playing field situation where any progress is down to player's skills (not the already established position).
Yes, you're probably right! Simon Webb's thesis in his book is that if you're in a competition situation (he was a successful competition player) then the important thing is to win! So he had no qualms whatsoever about being impolite to his elders and betters - if he could intimidate one of them into feeling frustrated and therefore playing worse, he'd happily do so. It's a fascinating book - he has a whole section on how to play in an objectively lost situation... but most of what he describes isn't old-fashioned good behaviour. I don't think the authorities quite approved of him. But not quite as bad as an old guy in a club I once played in - he took me aside one day and said "Do you want to know how to win against anyone?"
"Yes," I said.
"Well," he said, "It only works against guys in glasses. Just nick their glasses. Then they can't see what they're doing. Works every time!"