Originally posted by hany3
I feel anyone that resigns in the middle game part of a match is just shameful. Resignations, in my opinion, are intended to end a game with an obvious definite outcome. I'll never resign unless were in an endgame and I'm down to two or less major pieces (regardless of what they are, even two knights against a queen.) If I'm down by a lot in the middle of a ...[text shortened]... re trying to improve your game then what better practice is there than to fight from behind.

Well put, it states some obvious truths.

Originally posted by hany3
I feel anyone that resigns in the middle game part of a match is just shameful. Resignations, in my opinion, are intended to end a game with an obvious definite outcome. I'll never resign unless were in an endgame and I'm down to two or less major pieces (regardless of what they are, even two knights against a queen.) If I'm down by a lot in the middle of a ...[text shortened]... re trying to improve your game then what better practice is there than to fight from behind.

I would say that anyone who don`t resign in lost positions without any practical chances (unless your opponent is patzer who cant exploit material advantage or there are chances to win on time) is simple patzer.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Well put, it states some obvious truths.

Obvious truths for patzers.

Originally posted by hany3
Besides, if you're trying to improve your game then what better practice is there than to fight from behind.

If you're trying to improve your play you can spend your time better. Instead of wasting your time playing out hopeless positions you could read a couple of chess books or do some tactics puzzles or both. Or wonder how and why you got in that lost position anyway. I'd rather resign the game so I could analyse it and see what I've done wrong than waste my time playing it out.

I really couldn't care whether some 1300-1400 rated patzer thinks resigning on time is shameful. I find dragging a game out and being checkmated more shameful. I guess the difference lies in the level of play.

Originally posted by schakuhr
If you're trying to improve your play you can spend your time better. Instead of wasting your time playing out hopeless positions you could read a couple of chess books or do some tactics puzzles or both. Or wonder how and why you got in that lost position anyway.

That's not always true schakuhr, you are assuming that the position is hopeless or that there was no compensation for the queen.

Originally posted by Korch
Obvious truths for patzers.

You might be shocked to learn this, but some patzers use chess books, chess engines and databases to help them make their moves.

Originally posted by schakuhr

I really couldn't care whether some 1300-1400 rated patzer thinks resigning on time is shameful.

Do you often look down your nose at people? This comment tells a lot about you as a person. You're not alone in using this derogatory language I see.

As for the original post, it seems fairly reasonable to continue playing without your queen if you can learn something from it. At any rate, your opponent cannot complain; he/she might even learn something from finishing you off in the most efficient manner possible.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
You might be shocked to learn this, but some patzers use chess books, chess engines and databases to help them make their moves.

Have you started to use them?

Originally posted by agentreno
Do you often look down your nose at people? This comment tells a lot about you as a person. You're not alone in using this derogatory language I see.

Riiiiiiight - the derogatory language started with (emphasis added) "anyone who resigns in the middlegame is just shameful". 🙄

As usual with the 'courtesy-police' types, it is OK to slam a whole group of serious players, but not one individual.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Riiiiiiight - the derogatory language started with (emphasis added) "[b]anyone who resigns in the middlegame is just shameful". 🙄[/b]

That was an opinion and doesn't really qualify as derogatory. What I object to is the dismissal of someone's opinion together with the term 'patzer' applied by a stronger player to a weaker one as if they do not have a right to an opinion on the subject. Agree to disagree; fine. Name-calling? No.

Thats how I feel anyway.

Originally posted by agentreno
That was an opinion and doesn't really qualify as derogatory. What I object to is the dismissal of someone's opinion together with the term 'patzer' applied by a stronger player to a weaker one as if they do not have a right to an opinion on the subject. Agree to disagree; fine. Name-calling? No.

Thats how I feel anyway.

Of course it qualifies as derogatory.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derogatory

Main Entry:
de·rog·a·to·ry Listen to the pronunciation of derogatory
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈrä-gə-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function:
adjective
Date:
circa 1503

1 : detracting from the character or standing of something —often used with to, towards, or of 2 : expressive of a low opinion : disparaging

The 'patzer' comment is not just some haphazard insult. It is common for strong players in serious chess to resign in the middlegame. A player who calls this 'shameful' only reveals their ignorance of common practices in serious chess, or their contempt for those practices. Such a person IS very likely a 'patzer', and thus the comment is justified.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Of course it qualifies as derogatory.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derogatory

Main Entry:
de·rog·a·to·ry Listen to the pronunciation of derogatory
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈrä-gə-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function:
adjective
Date:
circa 1503

1 : detracting from the character or standing of something —often ...[text shortened]... e practices. Such a person IS very likely a 'patzer', and thus the comment is justified.

I don't need to be lectured thanks. I can see you have a touch of that same superiority complex yourself so I'm done with you.

Originally posted by agentreno
I don't need to be lectured thanks. I can see you have a touch of that same superiority complex yourself so I'm done with you.

Of course you're done. You're not the kind of person who can handle getting your bluff called, are you?

Re-read your latest post - no discussion of the issues; only derogatory comments. You're a hypocrite.

Originally posted by agentreno
That was an opinion and doesn't really qualify as derogatory. What I object to is the dismissal of someone's opinion together with the term 'patzer' applied by a stronger player to a weaker one as if they do not have a right to an opinion on the subject. Agree to disagree; fine. Name-calling? No.

Thats how I feel anyway.

ignore these myopic short-sighted macaroons, the juvenile whiny tone and the clueless ad hominems are a dead give-a-way.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Re-read your latest post - no discussion of the issues; only derogatory comments. You're a hypocrite.

Liar.