Why don't players resign when their game is 'lost'?

I have just played an end game and at move 60 something I have promoted a pawn to a Queen. Now I have KQ vs K. My opponent is 1400+, as am I. I'm flummoxed.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
I have just played an end game and at move 60 something I have promoted a pawn to a Queen. Now I have KQ vs K. My opponent is 1400+, as am I. I'm flummoxed.

Sorry - cannot give advice on game in progress.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
I have just played an end game and at move 60 something I have promoted a pawn to a Queen. Now I have KQ vs K. My opponent is 1400+, as am I. I'm flummoxed.

It's called sportsmanship--or the lack of----

Originally posted by woadman
It's called sportsmanship--or the lack of----

I disagree strongly (yet again with @woadman). There are no rules that say it's unsportsmanlike to not resign. This is an assumption made by you and perhaps @Duncan-Clarke Some players actually feel it is more sportsmanlike to allow their opponent to checkmate them.

I have in lost positions found perpetuals or a nifty stalemate and sadly had others find that against me. And of course, I have won on time many times (doesn't as easily apply on this site) down a full major or just a couple moves from being mated. I've equally lost many games on time when I was one move from mating my opponent. Am I annoyed-yes. But not at my opponent-it was their right to play on. I'm annoyed I couldn't win it sooner!

It is more unsportsmanlike to be annoyed when your opponent doesn't resign.

My advice to @Duncan-Clarke - just smile and finish them off in style. Checkmating an opponent is very satisfying. It is not for you to decide when your opponent should resign-that is their prerogative and not yours. So get over it and find a quick mate.

Thanks for your comments. I guess that my opponent is hoping for a draw by stalemate, or a timeout win.

I find it pleasing to checkmate an opponent, and also when he/she resigns in situations I consider a win for me.

However, sometimes players resign without any comment in a bad position. I find that disappointing. Certainly, if i know I probably should win, but there was no obvious route to victory yet.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
I have just played an end game and at move 60 something I have promoted a pawn to a Queen. Now I have KQ vs K. My opponent is 1400+, as am I. I'm flummoxed.

So mate him already.

Originally posted by woadman
It's called sportsmanship--or the lack of----

Sportsmanship is letting others make their own decision. I have managed several draws in that same situation. Should I have resigned instead?

Many times I've had players in absolute losing positions play on right to the move before checkmate,
and then resign 🙁

But it is of course within a players' right to resign whenever they want.
If you don't like it, don't play correspondence chess, simplez.

Hi Duncan,

Be nice, it's not like you are a non-sub with only six games, you have
plenty of games to keep you busy. (too many - see below)

One quick glance at the other lad's game history indicate that in
a large percentage of his games he plays on till he is checkmated.
He is playing to the rules of the game and very possibly thinking
that allowing his opponent to mate him is a way of saying 'Well Done."

Infact in your other game with this lad you had to play on for the mate
when you had two Queens so it is hardly a surprise he is playing on
when you have only one Queen.

The lad also have a few stalemates on his card. Once a player has saved
a game this way he is will keep playing for another in his other games.

Whilst here I'd like to thank you for posting as the game
is blog material and will be featuring in the next blog.

Not because of the lack of resigning, that is by the by...

I said:

"you have plenty of games to keep you busy."

Too many, and so does he.

Moves 50 - 56 when it was a KP V K ending you in your haste to win it,
botched it and his 56th move threw away an elementary draw.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
I have just played an end game and at move 60 something I have promoted a pawn to a Queen. Now I have KQ vs K. My opponent is 1400+, as am I. I'm flummoxed.

Because everyone doesn't have your point of view.

All we can expect in chess is for people to play by the rules! If you want the game to end, then checkmate them don't pretend that they must resign.

Personally I would rather resign than go through the frustration of playing out a lost position, but hey that's just me.

Originally posted by King Tiger
I disagree strongly (yet again with @woadman). There are no rules that say it's unsportsmanlike to not resign. This is an assumption made by you and perhaps @Duncan-Clarke Some players actually feel it is more sportsmanlike to allow their opponent to checkmate them.

I have in lost positions found perpetuals or a nifty stalemate and sadly had others fi ...[text shortened]... ent should resign-that is their prerogative and not yours. So get over it and find a quick mate.

I second this. Resignation exists for the benefit of the losing player, to spare them the pain of playing on when they consider the game hopeless.

I like to play out games to see how my opponent checkmates me, I do this not to annoy any opponent as I would not wish to do that, however I feel I can learn something from seeing how my opponent moves to finish the game.

Willy.........

After seeing how you handled that K+P ending I would have played on too.

A slightly shell-shocked Nigel Short played quite a few of his Championship matches with Kasparov through to mate long after the position was lost in the early 90s, and it was no insult to the latter, who not unreasonably appeared to enjoy the process. Have you actually conversed with your opponent during the match? Perhaps if you helped him analyse the position you'd both gain more from his lost position.