I frequently see players that do not resign in dead lost position with a material imbalance of at least 10 points or even more. They keep playing normally as if nothing had happened. In some cases (especially for very inexperienced player) I totally unterstand this because they might want to learn something from the other player and this is totally fine for me. But when more experienced players do this (like 1500-1800 rated), I feel pretty much offended for such a disrespectful behavior.
This is why I'd like to ask the chess community's thoughts about this topic.
What makes you think to keep playing even when being down a lot of material? (without any noticeable compensation of course)
Please note: I'd like to explicitly exclude any time trouble related situations from this discussion. Let's say both players do have plenty of time left on their clock. Without any time trouble whatsoever.
Granted, I'm definitely in the learning category, an often repeated piece of advice from Ben Finegold is, quite literally "Never Resign". How literally one should take that advice is debatable, but his point revolves mostly around how common blunders are, even at higher levels. And it's probably not terrible to get some endgame practice in.
Personally? I don't see the issue. If you signed up for a 10+ match, you knew you were committing up to 20 minutes to a game. If the position is as winning as you think it is, it probably won't last much longer, and you'll still finish early.
Again, I'm in the <1300 Category, so every game is a learning game, take this with a pinch of salt if you will. :)
I asked a similar question a couple months ago.
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/is-not-resigning-in-completely-losing-positions-considered-disrespectful#1 And most people think at 1500 level not resigning is OK. (As can be seen in that game, my opponent, over 1500 rated, with over 1 minute, managed to blunder away two pawns vs king.) At least you can enjoy the joy of checkmating if your opponent doesn't resign. 1500-1700 is not experienced. If you don't believe me, watch a typical 1500-1700 game and see how many times we blunder pieces...
Still, at higher level, like 1900, maybe not resigning is disrespectful, especially if the losing player deliberately takes a lot of time moving.
Actually that's exactly the case. In a position where you're a pawn down in a lost king and pawn endgame, there's no way that your opponent can blunder, so normally people resign; in a position where you're down 6 pieces, the possibility of stalemating becomes not negligible, so not resigning is reasonable. If there are no stalemating rules, maybe not resigning is disrespectful; but that rule allow players to play for stalemate. Must I show some above 1800 level games that ended in stalemate? (You can use advanced search, there are plenty.
lichess.org/kFLmA5oV lichess.org/65ifQcJo/black just for instance.)
@Hantale This "Never resign" phrase is one of the few things I totally disagree with Ben Finegold. I do appreciate his advices a lot and I'm very certain I learned a lot just by watching him. But this "Never resign" nonsense (in lost positions) simply relies on your expectation your opponent will go completely nuts and start blundering all over the place on every move. This, my friend, is pretty much disrespectful, IMO. Especially in higher levels, blunders don't happen as common as you said. It may happen occasionally, from game to game but certainly not constantly in every game and that's a big difference.
@Stephanie_s_Symphony what I meant to say is, that 1500-1700 players are very much able to evaluate the position as completely lost which might not be the case for a 900 player. This is what makes the difference why I expect a 1500 to resign in such positions. Even if you blunder just one single piece, in positions with a material imbalance of 10 points or even more, I'd give you the piece any time for no reason and I'd still be completely winning.
Everyone has a right to be checkmated.
As much as you may consider it "disrespectful" and as much as it irritates me when the shoe is on my foot.
Is there any other sport or game where a player is expected to announce their own loss? Of course not. You play on until time runs out or the final hand is dealt.
I know how you feel. Due to age and physical problems I am slow with a mouse. I cannot physically make a move in less than one second, no mater how fast I think of it. So, there I am, up two pieces in a simplified position, where all I need do is demonstrate mating technique. My opponent plays on. Frustrating, but it is his/her right, and the game is not over until it is over. I think, sometimes say out loud (though no one can hear me): "Do you think I don't know how to do this? Why are we going on?"
Learn to live with it, maybe even enjoy it. Practice mating or mopping up technique. If it is bothering you, then it is you that has a problem, because you can't bully or shame an opponent into resigning. You need to checkmate them.
@sparowe14 dude, you're comparing two completely different things here. Of course there is no other sport where a player is expected to announce their own loss, since it's simply not part of the rules to withdraw from the game or declare your loss. But in chess this is the case.
Sometimes, when players really really want to get check mated and play until the very last move, I underpromote to a bishop and a knight and show them who's boss. When people want to get check mated that bad, I'll give them the humiliation they deserve.
Sounds like they are giving you the frustration you deserve. One of the few ways an inferior wood-pusher can get satisfaction against you superior players (who know when to resign) is to get under your skin. It seems to work.
@sparowe14 check mating with B&N is satisfying and not frustrating at all ;) So everything works in my favor.
@ChessAddict1337 People resign because they're sure they'll lose. If they're not sure they'll lose, it's their right to play on, ESPECIALLY with half a set of pieces down since there are bunch of stalemates. As DrawingGod pointed out, though stalemates are rare, even if they only happen 1% of the time, that's once in 100 games, do you think that's negligible? There are 8686452 Rapid games with above 1800 rating on lichess. 127530 ended in stalemate (1.4%). And do I need to mention that 8686452 includes equal games and aborted games? Are you sure you won't blunder stalemate 100% of the time? If not, that's it.
