Giving up when -M1 should count as checkmate

Many opponents give up when they see they will be mate in 1 or 2. I think this should count as a checkmate still and not a surrender.

A win is a win. It doesn't matter why it happened, it's treated the same.

No, there are statistics.

It doesn't really matter if your statistics are x% wins via checkmate vs y% via resignation.

There are features on this site that are interesting to some people but uninteresting to others. If you don't care about it that's fine, but I'm suggesting this because I am interested in it.

But if your opponent resigns when there's a forced mate, it's still a resignation.

Nah, I get what he is saying.  If you are keeping statistics on resignations vs. mates, then a resignation on M1 should be counted as mate,  because it is more like a mate than a resignation.  The game ended because of mate, just one move earlier, rather than weak position, which is usually when resignation is used.

I know that. That's why I made this post. My point is, especially on the lower levels blunders occur often that make people resign. I think there is a big difference between winning because of your opponent's blunders or by outplaying him. So having an opponent resign when you would've mated him in a move or two feels like being robbed of a trophy.
 

I can't imagine the site would ever code a resignation as a mate, even in cases of forced mates at the point of resignation.

Ok.

I don't really understand how that would work. A resignation and a checkmate count as exactly the same thing. The reasons behind checkmate are very limited, the king is in check, and he can't move or capture or block the attacking piece.

But the reasons behind resignation are much more varied. Just because you see a mate in one does not mean your opponent does.  There have been many games (probably by you as well) were you missed a mate in one. So what if there is a mate in one but the opponent doesn't see it and resigns instead because they have to make dinner? Should making dinner count as a checkmate? It just makes no sense.

Or look at it this way. Often there are games where the final seconds are crucial. At that point in  time even grandmasters make very bad mistakes, missing otherwise easy combinations, tactics, or forced mates. So lets say there is a forced mate in one, with a couple seconds left. But the opponent does not see it and runs out of time. So would this loss on time also have to count as a checkmate??

It's probably better to leave the scoring system the way it is, that way we don't have to assume the opponent sees and knows everything about the game that we see and know. 

I do agree I was thinking the same thing.

I don't agree. The chances that you get a forced mate in one and your opponent resigns because he has to make dinner are so slim that it's negligible. Then again, I don't see any real harm in that: That person gets 1 "wrong" mate out of 100000, which wouldn't even change the percentage. On the other hand, the person checkmating gets maybe half of his mates denied (that's roughly what I experience).
The chances that your opponent resigns because he sees the mate in one but you don't are a bit higher but I still think that the cases where your opponent just doesn't want to get mated outweigh that by far.
I know about grandmaster games and different time modes but I don't think that changes anything.

Marking it as a checkmate when you lose on time with mate in one is debatable.

OK, what if it's not because you have to make dinner. What if, for example, it's a complicated middle game (and there happens to be a mate in one that's not seen by EITHER party) but you have to answer the door (or phone)? Then what? Then should resigning because there is a mate in one that nobody sees be considered a checkmate?? Just because the phone rings? Imagine all the reasons that now would constitute checkmate. Having to go to the bathroom, boredom, hunger, etc, etc. 

Maybe it's a good idea to keep the scoring system the way it is, instead of assuming the opponent sees the mate in one that you happen to see. 

I suppose the same reasoning would apply to the loss on time. What happens if you lose on time (but there is a mate in one that nobody sees). Is it really debatable that should be a checkmate?

I agree the reason doesn't matter, I just took the same example. And yes, I do think it should count as checkmate whether he sees the mate in one or not. I dont want to allege anyone to do it out of malice, but he wouldn't be able to change the outcome anyway. The only instance where it would be wrong to give the checkmate win would be when you yourself didn't see the mate, but again I do think that these cases are way more rare.

I don't have a strong opinion on the loss on time case. Although I would use the same reasoning, I do think that loss on time is a bit different.

So would this require an alteration or amendment to the rules of chess? Or would this be an online only change? Do you see any possibility of disagreement on what was (or was not) a resignation for other reasons rather than a mate in one? 

For example, it's impossible to prove someone does or does not see a mate in one, right? So, how would it be awarded if there is a mate in one, but instead of resigning the opponent just lets the time run out. Would one scenario be a checkmate but the other not? Do you see any problems in judging such a situation?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to leave the current scoring system alone, that way we wouldn't have to assume the opponent is thinking exactly what we are thinking.

I was only referring to the statistics of chess.com . Of course, I think there are people who disagree, but I still think the 'harm' would be very small.
I see problems with judging as I don't see how you can prove that one saw a mate in one or not but also I don't think it's the responsibility of anyone to judge. Laws and rules will always harm some people but are meant to protect the majority, but I don't really want to get philosophical here..
I still find it's better to change the current system as it's not even a big matter but only for statistics that apparently don't matter to most as Martin_Stahl suggested above.

I guess I don't see the point of those statistics when we know they would be flawed. It would artificially inflate the number of checkmates when in reality the loss was for another reason. 

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to leave the current system in place, where a checkmate is exactly that and where a loss on time is exactly that, and a loss by resignation is exactly that? Also it would eliminate the assumptions that we can know what our opponent is thinking. Reading minds is tricky business, we often get it wrong. 

I already went into any of these points. I have a different opinion.