Winners never QUIT and quitters never WIN. (NEVER Resign)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Oh, shut up.

Please, let him go on, it is a facinating study of a delusional boob.

I don't know, most of the time I continue to play on, even when I have a losing position (and that's often). 😛

When my opponent resigns, then it takes some of the fun out of it. (s)He didn't give me the satisfaction to checkmate them.
So with that mindset, I play on in a losing position... to give my opponent the satisfaction of checkmating me.
It's a two-way street... it's what you call, Enjoying the game regardless of who wins.

Who knows, maybe (s)he can checkmate me in an unusual manner or visa-versa.

Ah this guy again. Is this account number 10? I lost track...

I have to admit I have been disapointed when my opponent resigns
and I have a nice finish cooked up.

And I read a few days ago about some lad who could not mate with a King
and Rook v a lone King in a league match.

He explained that he had never had to do it before because his opponents
had always resigned.

So by resigning....

A) Sometimes you rob your opponent of a pretty finsih.
B) Your opponent may miss out on the opportunity to learn something.

In that respect perhaps Teacher has a point.

However he is totally correct in his opening statement.

The moment you resign then the chance of a draw or even a win has gone.
There is no arguing iwth that, it's a fact.

He also failed to mention....

Sometimes a player will resign in a won position.
Twice this has happened in my favour OTB and once in a CC game.

Teacher's advice is do not resign.

However, The choice is yours. It's your move, it's your decision.
Nobody can force you to resign. Nobody can force you to play on.

I once mated an opponent on the 50th move of a Bishop+Knight ending in a five minute game. Learn your endgames! That said, a book or a good teacher are a far better expenditure of time than playing on in a hopeless position. You might actually learn something that way. Paradoxically, pressing a big merciless boot down on your defenseless victim's chest could be good practice for the stronger player.

Originally posted by teacher1
Yep, you heard right, never resign. See people, resigning is quitting. It is throwing in the towel when faced with a potential loss. It is LAZY chess behavior and disrespectful to your opponent. I CAME to play, not watch you give up on move 7 because you dropped a rook, you LAZY buffoon.

There is NOTHING to be learned by giving up. Only by playing it out asp?newsid=3509

Bottom line, ANY game can be won, lost or drawn within the SPAN of 1 move.

There's also the other thread "advice" where he writes:

"BUY chessmaster (the single best tutoring tool there is) and watch your rating SKYROCKET. Ditch the books. Studies show that learning is amplified when using a computer vs. a book.

FIRE your tutor. Once again, a chess program will teach you infinitely more (and at a MUCH cheaper price) than some bored chess hack who has no skill WHATSOEVER at teaching.

Avoid games under 30 minutes per side. You wanna learn REAL chess or piece trading, clock slapping, no-brainer chess?

Play opponents STRONGER than you. Strive to LOSE. You think by benching 100 lbs you're gonna be the next powerlifting champ? You got to break down those muscles (in this case, your brain). Nothing is to be learned by beating up on chess novices and taking the EASY road."

And when I read the "Strive to LOSE" and thought about this thread, I had to laugh!

If your opponent has a mate in one, and you should strive to lose but never quit, I hope you have a big time bank!

Originally posted by teacher1
Yep, you heard right, never resign. See people, resigning is quitting. It is throwing in the towel when faced with a potential loss. It is LAZY chess behavior and disrespectful to your opponent. I CAME to play, not watch you give up on move 7 because you dropped a rook, you LAZY buffoon.

There is NOTHING to be learned by giving up. Only by playing it out ...[text shortened]... asp?newsid=3509

Bottom line, ANY game can be won, lost or drawn within the SPAN of 1 move.

I would generally agree. This is especially true of players under 2000. I would make an exception here if one player has lost a great deal of material, and has no realistic chance of winning.