lichess.org
Donate

Does it bother you when people don't resign when their position is lost?

When I'm in a losing position when the only way I could get a stalemate or a checkmate is by luck, I resign for five reasons -

1 - I don't want to spend my free time playing a game of chess that I have clearly lost.
2 - I don't want to waste my opponent's time playing a game of chess that I have clearly lost.
3 - I don't want to win a game on luck
4 - I don't want my opponent to feel that I'm...
...too stupid to see the position is lost.
...too stubborn to admit the position is lost.
...so desperate to win that I hope they run out of time.

So, whenever I'm playing a game of chess, and my opponent is in a position that is clearly lost, but keeps delaying the inevitable and does not resign, it irritates me.

I understand that there are reasons some people don't resign - perhaps they think that resigning is a show of weakness, or perhaps they don't realize that there is a resign button, or perhaps their parents have been kidnapped by an insane serial killer and the only way to save them is to play lots of chess games without using the resign button.

I get annoyed at them anyway, because, let's face it, you still get angry when a spider bites you even though you know it probably had a perfectly good reason.

Does it irritate you when people don't resign in a lost position?
Is there anyone that actually gets annoyed when people resign?
#1 It annoys me when an opponent, after prolonging a trivially lost game for many moves (and minutes or hours), resigns upon seeing the forced checkmate sequence instead of allowing the game to run to completion.

If the remainder of the game doesn't take too much time, or is in some way entertaining & not mundane, then generally I don't mind...
I'm fine with people playing on in a lost position, and asking me to earn the win, but i think people should resign in a clearly lost position. telling what is what is of course the hard part.
I get slightly annoyed when I'm clearly winning early on and I could have a nice long, relaxing break before the next round if my opponent just accepted his fate quickly but instead plays on, but I'm not really annoyed at my opponent. I'm, more accurately, annoyed at the circumstance, I guess. My opponent has the right to play the game of chess we agreed to play, and I would never begrudge him that.
If the position is really trivial then it is can be time wasting.

But even in a lost position, you can practice to efficient defend your "lost" position.

So for instance, I prefer to attack, but when I lose material I try to defend. Learning how to defend by coordinating your pieces and your weaknesses can be beneficial regardless if the position is lost.

But if the someone's objective is to just win I can see why it could be frustrating. For example when trying to win a tournament you would be like: Come on man, cut it out with your practice non sense already!
@dunno

Yeah, you're probably better at being a human being than me. I get directly annoyed at the person I'm playing with, even though I shouldn't.

It's like road rage - even though there are a thousand rational reasons as to why that person is pulling out in front of me, I automatically assume it's because they are in a hurry to get home so they can yell at their kids and watch American Idol.

This is probably a sign that I shouldn't play chess with someone in person.
#4 you can return to tournament after you are "relaxed". why waste everyones time?
In no way, shape, or form, was I wasting anyone's time in anything referred to in my post. I think either you misunderstood something, or I am not quite understanding your post. Could you clarify?
Alot of players will play to the end to see HOW you are going to win. As long as there is a chance of stalemate or a draw I see no problem with playing on. Its up to the winning player to find the most efficient route to the win.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.