Players don't realise that we have the right to play until checkmate, we don't have to resign

yeh, bravo?
i can do without "winning" like that - in my eyes it's a loss

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said ^

yeh, bravo?
i can do without "winning" like that - in my eyes it's a loss

Everywhere meaningful ( record, game history, database) it counts as a win.

If you could not clinch the game in time, its a loss. Expecting a resignation is lazy

The argumentation in this thread is crazy.
Why are so many people bringing up GM games? Again, if a GM cheats, are you gonna follow them? Not to mention most GMs do resign in clearly losing positions.
Many more are bringing cases for when a game is not completely and exactly lost. If a game isn't lost, then go for it and don't resign, but when a game is lost, you agree, I agree, and when the players know, then the players should still have the ability to resign - but it's a better option for both players to move onto another game.
When a player continues regardless, it drains their energy and bores their opponent too. When this very specific situation is created, someone has the right to point it out to the other player.

When the OP says any form of criticism against the opponent, any sort of polite advice, or nicely asking is considered verbal abuse it can be only concluded that because the argumentation is riddled with strawmen, cherry picking and appeal to authority, the actual basis is because yall are greedy to squeeze the last bit of elo, because of your inert distrust in yourself to gain elo by actually improving your conceptual skills and that in the midst of range, you can't consciously choose to resign, or perhaps you think chess is your life, in which case I remind you the very GMs that you so admire, despise that level of hyperfixation.

Yall are demonizing and stereotyping the players who ask for resignation or criticize this hyperfixation on winning games like this. I get that when the rules of the game allow so, you are allowed to min-max those rules. But when it objectively reduces the quality of the game as in playing a new game on equal grounds with a new opponent is better than continuing the same game which is almost pre-determined and unbalanced at this point - then players get the right to at least call you out, or call out the game, which is an act that hurts nobody, and ig you could say hate the game not the player, but nobody seems to have said that.

Of course, logic is a myth when you are the culprit, and emotion is the captain of your ship.

@alijeba said ^

Why not jsut finish the game with mate 150 moves earlier? Both players as bad as each other there

This discussion struck an iceberg ~17 hours ago. As I write this, there are now 24 topics above it in the discussion list.

Yeah, that happens to threads with lots of replies that dont go anywhere

@alijeba cmon what are we doing? why would you do this to smbdy??

@C4LOwenZ said ^

@alijeba cmon what are we doing? why would you do this to smbdy??

Probably to bolster his self-esteem with the 3 ACPL...

Писюн