Originally posted by buddy2It's not such a big deal in correspondence, when you can just log in and move. But OTB, on slow time controls? When you have to sit there, late into the night, waiting for some moron to realize they're not going to pull off some stalemate trap against a clearly superior player? Maddening.
Generally, the higher rated opponents resign when they consider they have a lost game. The lower rated you go, the less likely the player will resign, sometimes in any circumstances. I think they harbor the wish that you will stalemate them with your three queens! Or maybe they hate to see their rating go down. In my opinion, I think it best to resign in ...[text shortened]... . It's really easy to play in an easily won position and it doesn't take long to think about.
Originally posted by buddy2Personally I drag out a lot of lost games. Not in a vain attempt to stalemate my opponent or out of fear of losing rating points, but because I want to learn more about endgame dynamics. I'm not very good at transforming a material surplus into a win, and I like to see how other people manage. On occasion I might message my opponent and ask if he minds playing the game to the end for learning purposes even though it's a lost cause, and so far I only got one angry reply🙂
Generally, the higher rated opponents resign when they consider they have a lost game. The lower rated you go, the less likely the player will resign, sometimes in any circumstances. I think they harbor the wish that you will stalemate them with your three queens! Or maybe they hate to see their rating go down. In my opinion, I think it best to resign in ...[text shortened]... . It's really easy to play in an easily won position and it doesn't take long to think about.
Of course I won't play something ridiculous to the end. I'd never stay around to see if my opponent really could pull of the mate in a R+K vs. K game for example.
Originally posted by buddy2It isn't always lower rated players who chose to play on to the end, hoping for a terible blunder or a vacation maybe :-)
Generally, the higher rated opponents resign when they consider they have a lost game. The lower rated you go, the less likely the player will resign, sometimes in any circumstances. I think they harbor the wish that you will stalemate them with your three queens! Or maybe they hate to see their rating go down. In my opinion, I think it best to resign in ...[text shortened]... . It's really easy to play in an easily won position and it doesn't take long to think about.
Game 422360
Breaca
Veggiechess and Angel Number 7
Originally posted by AlopintoThis is the same player who used to compose a "list", and then publish it on the forums. The list was of players she would no longer be playing because THEY didn't know when to resign.
What a display of lack of class and cowardice... It is just not rewarding playing games like this and continue playing being down materially. Your opponent doesn't respect himself...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, it is not. It is disrespectfull and it is horrible chess! If there is a trace of game then I agree with you but dragging a game is a cowardly thing to do. Resigning gracefully shows character and good sportsmanship.
Playing down materially is good! The other side can counter blunder to compensate for your initial blunder.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 04
- Moves
- 254986
To keep on fighting, at the same time awaiting blunders by your opponent or try to receive a stalemate shows character aswell. Unless you are very tired of a game, or your opponent and the chance of winning is (almost) hopeless, I will resign. Otherwise, I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable to force my superior opponent playing me to checkmate.
Originally posted by AikoIt is your opinion...
To keep on fighting, at the same time awaiting blunders by your opponent or try to receive a stalemate shows character aswell. Unless you are very tired of a game, or your opponent and the chance of winning is (almost) hopeless, I will resign. Otherwise, I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable to force my superior opponent playing me to checkmate.
Playing on a correspondence chess game to the bitter checkmate when you are down materially is just a pointless exercise that shows that you don't respect yourself nor your opponent.
Find out if your opponent is ill or is very aged. You might consider playing on until he stops moving (literally). A melancholy story: That happened to me once when (in the old days) we used postcards in the pre-cyber age. No cards arrived from this gentleman from Denmark for many months, even after I sent several reminders. Finally his widow wrote back and explained the situation. Alas, I hated to garner the point. He was a gentleman of infinite jest.
I've seen in this thread people called "cowards." I've seen accusations of "gutless." And now I see somebody telling another person that the other person has no respect for himself.
All in the name of defending "courtesy," of course.
Can we add "crybabies" and "hypocrites" to the list now?
Maybe some people shouldn't play chess.
And yes, that's just my opinion. One that I'm proud to have in the face of the nastiness and ugliness some self-professed "courteous" people display so gleefully.