Resignation

So I understand why players resign, I have no problem with it and I resign when the game is lost. But if a player runs until 1 move before mate and resigns, I cannot happen to feel disrespected. Does anyone else see the disrespect?

I never really thought of it like that, but this reminds me of a time when in an OTB blitz game I was low on time but also in trouble so was using even more time.  Then when I just couldn't find anything, and watching my clock carefully, I stopped the clock with 1 second left and resigned.  The guy said how disappointing, I should have let myself run out of time or something heh.

 I don't see the "disrespect". That's your problem.

A win is a win, no matter how you get it   :)

I also don't understand why this would be an example of disrespect. On the contrary, if the player sees that he'll lose for certain, he resigns! If it is only one move before mate - fine - if it is two or more, even better!

If a player is losing and he knows he has a lost position, whether one or ten moves away from checkmate, why prolong the agony?

I generally go ahead and let my opponent deliver mate if its a move or two away.

the case in question was this: he was left with 1 blocked pawn and i had 4 pawns, and my queen. I promoted the other queen and chased him all over the board. I blocked him from being able to stalemate me and he made me chase him all the way to the corner. he knew mate was coming 6 moves in. he resigned the move prior to mate. I see activity like this all the time, kind of like a "you dont get the gratification of mate" type play. I see this as disrespectful, rude chess play.

Here's a great example: I was playing against a player that was rated almost 1000 higher than me, and I had him 1 move away from mate (http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=13101572). 

Instead of me winning the game, he proceeded to put me in check no less than 5 times before mating me!  Are you suggesting that he should have resigned when I was 1 move away from mate?  And how much true respect does that show for your opponent when you force them to show you that they know how to win the game?  Otherwise, every game is a draw, and you shouldn't even bother playing.

People need to grow some backbone.

In what universe were you "one move away from mate"? There were some vague threats, but White did not have a forced mate. In fact, Black completely dominates the position after 20. Qh4.

The original poster probably referred to situations in which you actually are "one move away from mate" - when you have a forced mate in one.

There's nothing disrespectful about resigning! On the contrary it sounds like you're miffed about being denied some sort of self-satisified gloating that goes along with playing the mate on the board. 

"Hey! Why did you say "uncle" so soon you disrespectful little jerk!? I wasn't finished grinding your face into the pavement!" 

You can "dominate the position" and still lose.

I think that you too are missing the original poster's point. He never said that resigning is disrespectful. What is disrespectful in his opinion is when a player refuses to resign in a lost position (look again, he explained the situation in great detail), making you play on until mate becomes completely inevitable, only to resign one move before you can deliver the final blow. I have encountered this behaviour in my own games too, and I found it pretty immature.

What does that have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that you were never "one move away from mate" in the sense that the original poster intended. Having a mate threat is not the same as having a forced mate.

In the game I linked, Qxd8 is mate any time after move 20.  Black must play check on every turn, whether "dominating" or not.  Mr. Blane even agreed with me on that point.

(edit) I see what you mean.  I would have to wait until the rook moves away (move 21) before I'm free to take the one on d8, but by then, black has threats of his own.  I still enjoyed the game very much, and never thought either one of us showed any disrespect towards each other.  Clearly, situations like the OP describes are more of the "griefing" variety.

I think there must be some mistake, since in the game you linked, after 20. Qh4 the rook on d8 is guarded by the other rook on g8.

At any rate, the fact is that Black had a defence against your threat, as the game clearly shows. Therefore, White has no forced mate. The position you offered is not an example of the situation the original poster had in mind, in which the mate is inevitable.

I think that is exactly what he meant. In my opinion, it's clear as crystal that his opponent was purposefully trying to spite him.

each person has a different set of reasons for resigning. if your playing a strong player and you recongnize your position is lost why not resign. i will push the envelope with weaker players to make them prove that they understand how to mate with minimum material . other than that if a person quits i don't take it personal. it's the ones who resign or get mated then start swearing at you in the chat that are a little bothersome from time to time.

Looks like this was a 10 minute game. How much time was left on your clock? Could he have been trying to salvage the draw by running you out of time? After all, you missed 57. Qcc8#, and he got you to make nine more moves (up by two queens plus!) before he resigned.

Respect must often be earned. If, prior to that, someone does not show respect, it's not necessarily "disrespect," either. There is a middle ground of uncertainty. Inefficient endgame technique inspires hope when the clock is running out. Why not push it a little farther than one would in a longer game with lots of time left? Stalemate may have seemed a possibility until you finally forced him into the clear and began to finally march him to the edge. What did he have to lose?

I've had opponents refuse to resign and force me to deliver mate. I can understand at high levels where this might be considered disrespectful, and it could even at mine, I suppose. It just never bothered me. I may have thought, "You're kidding, right?" but just went on until I forced the end. Maybe I have a thicker skin than some players.

I don't get this whole manufactured disrespect thing.

It seems like a huge waste of time and energy to read into another person's idiosyncratic choices some kind of offense.  At this level, people make all kinds of chess-blunders; why wouldn't they mishandle other things as well?

Maybe they unrealistically hope you'll blunder as well.

Maybe they want to see how far they can take it and when they get near the end decide that they've seen enough.

Maybe they want to continue all the way but out of desire to show respect for you cut it short.

Maybe they're ambivalent about whether or not resigning/not resigning is the right thing to do (honor, respect, etc.).

Maybe they're just not paying much attention.

And so on.

****

"Respect" implies that it's more about you than about them.

It's most likely entirely about them.

****

IMO, respectfully.