I do not find it annoying, if players refuse to resign in a dead-lost position.
I do find it annoying, that some people want to put pressure on others to resign earlier!
If you want to convert your winning position into a win, then create pressure on your opponent during the game, and not after the game in a forum.
@osdeving8 
By the way i am a sheep
🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑
I noticed some different points of view. And I do not know if I can trust that are true.
I must say with MUCH HONESTY:
I do not believe that rating truly measures the strength of a player relative a other single player. So for me the only way to know if I'm better or worse than my opponent is playing some games, at least 'best of 3'.
I must emphasize this thought: my goal is to know who of us is a better chess player. And I can still say more: I do not consider a legitimate victory if it came by time. I KNOW exactly when I was outplayed. I do not know how low rated players see it, but any chess player knows about domination. We know if the opponent lost just because he committed a 'silly mistake' or if he really lost because of our own merit.
Analyze, guys: I do not feel satisfied if in winning my opponent I did it because he lost concentration due to your 4 year old son. I also will not be happy if I beat someone drunk.
Analyze, guys: I will not be happy because I beat carlsen while he's drugged, why should I? Is it the real Carlsen?
The rating creates people's delusions. Every time I play against someone stronger I ask rematch to show him that he is not better than me just because he has 2200 and I have 1900. Moreover, when I am with a completely won position and the opponent continues to play, for me he has already lost , no matter what the reason for it to draw or to win after this, will be unrelated to chess.
This is how I see chess: time, carelessness, unintentionally dropped the piece, etc. etc. This is NOT chess, maybe the SPORTS side of chess, but it's all subjective, illusory, it's not the truth. In chess I seek truth and / or know what truth is ... and the truth is objective one, no subjective, the truth need to be able to be reproduced and for this it is necessary enough sampling
Dont cry, if I have a queen more than my opponent without any compensation, he already lost. If he win it's an alien phenomenon. It is a situation where I am in full control, the natural course of the game is only one: white will won. This is determinism, it is science.
Chess is subjective only until the position is not defined, at a certain point the position is defined and any result that violates the verdict is due to subjective factors ranging from tiredness to the death of a family member lol.
And that is because I dont like fighter players (he seek to subjective factors), and I dont like players who limits the sampling by taking from me the truth about us both
Oh, truth, I love this concept and any discussions about it.
A true thing: Sports, games, football, chess, they are in some way simulations of the real life. As in real life you have a goal, and you have some rules, and many obstacles or opponents, that do not want, that you reach your goal.
In real life maybe, you have to run away from a tsunami. You are a good runner, you have almost reached a safe haven. Then, out of some "subjective", highly random circumstances, you stumble, break your leg. You die. No way to say "But I know, that I was fast enough for this old tsunami". You die.
Imagine Oetzi. He almost managed, to flee from his enemies. But a last arrow, shot in desperation without any hope, quite subjectively, hit him. Oetzi is dead.
(No, I do not know from my own experience, I just made up the details)
So many ways to fail...
A formula one pilot, leading 90% of the race, then, for the fraction of a second, he thinks of his sick mother, and slides off the track. Game over.
To finish first, you first have to finish (Ron Denis)
@Catspaw exactly, such possible ego-motivations are the reason I look with suspicion at rematch challenges.
@osdeving8 why do you want to know "who is better"? Who cares? What difference does it make?
Edit: asking because my point of playing is above all similar to solving puzzles, ie contemplation.
About 90% of my rematch challenges come from people I have just beaten (ie sore losers). I ignore them unless they post in the comment box (eg "Good game", "well played" "another?"). If they have no manners to interact then they are no different to anyone else so I will take my next challenge from the pool. Anyway, I usually review my game when it's over; it's not my fault they never wait for more than a few seconds.
People that refuse rematches do it for several reasons, but I think these are the most common.
1. It was a close game that they were losing until their opponent made a fatal blunder and then they won. In this case, the refusal to grant a rematch stems from the fact that the player understands he is worse and would lose a rematch.
2. The game was a close draw and the player feels he was lucky to even get that.
3. They won with white and do not want to take their chances with black.
I think everything else is largely just noise. I think these are really the top reasons and they are all, to some extent, rooted in the fear of loss against an opponent that has sized them up.
I will also add that many people that win, and refuse a rematch, feel that their opponent is going to try to get some "revengine" - that is, revenge with an engine. Because everybody tends to assume everybody else cheats, those that lose request rematches so they can "turn the tables" by any means at their disposal.
Hope that helped.
People online are just pieces of crap, overall.
@laatikko I do not know, I think it's part of our nature. This is stronger in man and for a long time it has been concluded that woman does not have the correct attitude to play chess well. Because chess is not just a physical dispute, the ego is painfully hurt when we lose because it's nothing about genetics. We do not have the excuse of being small or another physical attribute, it is a mental dispute. It's as if losing you is dumber than the opponent.
Chess, being a mind sport, has more psychological influence and, like poker, can tilt the competitors.
Those who have already left a game of chess until half drunk from psychological beating knows what I'm talking about. And that does not seem to be very strong on beginners. But the more the level increases, the more it happens. Fischer and Kasparov were known for tilt your opponents ...
Cagey - you're wrong.
Are some reasons for not rematching:
1.It was a tough game and I need a mental break.
2.It was an easy game and I learnt nothing.
3.It was a close game and I want to review it.
4.I had to waste time giving mate with K & Q vs K or some such.
5.My opponent refused a dead draw and we wasted time on 3-move repetition.
6.My opponent does not use chat, just clicks lazily.
7.I don't play well after I've thrashed someone because I'm pitying them.
8. I have a life.
And I'm not at a standard where white/black is so critical. I never even think which I am after the opening.
I think you are just not a good loser.
@osdeving8 I don't believe it's part of human nature. It has more to do with ego and comparing yourself with others instead of minding your own business and getting on with your life. Chess is just a (stupid) game and if you use it to show yourself you're better than someone else, maybe you're on a wrong track.
