I never abandon games, but I have pulled a stalemate a few times refusing to surrender a hopeless position. I suppose that's only slightly less disrespectful, but I insist in being beaten and not surrendering.
Abandoning instead of resigning
Sort:
Aug 10, 2023
0
#63
djaysnider wrote:
I never abandon games, but I have pulled a stalemate a few times refusing to surrender a hopeless position. I suppose that's only slightly less disrespectful, but I insist in being beaten and not surrendering.
W for fighting till the end, but we werent talking about that
we were talking about abandoning 
My last blitz game I won by resignation, but it was when he had 1 second left. I had to sit there for a long time just to win the game.
ldcn wrote:
I've noticed that many of my opponents abandon the game when they suddenly get into a losing position (e.g. they blundered their queen). My question is what do players gain from abandoning the game instead of resigning? For me it seems that the only difference is that I have to wait a few seconds before playing the next game. If there's no benefit to abandoning the game, why not just resign? I'm going to assume that this happens less among higher rated players...
I'm new to chess.com, and ran into that situation where a player in a losing position lets the time run out. I didn't get why, I didn't even assume it had any intention.
But something I also found confusing is that I've had two games in a row where it said the player "abandoned the game" only after a few moves and the game was still very even (no blunder, nothing special). In that case I assume it is due to their internet connection, but it's impossible to know if there's another motive. Maybe they try an opening and it doesn't pan out as they expected, and they want to move on (but don't wan't to resign as to not admit it). So far I enjoy the win regardless but it's still very new to me.
Feb 19, 2024
0
#66
ldcn wrote:
I've noticed that many of my opponents abandon the game when they suddenly get into a losing position (e.g. they blundered their queen). My question is what do players gain from abandoning the game instead of resigning? For me it seems that the only difference is that I have to wait a few seconds before playing the next game. If there's no benefit to abandoning the game, why not just resign? I'm going to assume that this happens less among higher rated players...
Resigning is defined as "accept that something undesirable cannot be avoided" (Oxford Dictionary)
Abandoning is defined as "ceas[ing] to support or look after [a chess game]" (Oxford Dictionary)
Resigning in chess is saying your opponent won.
Abandonning in (online) chess is closing the tab and "cease to look after" the game.
Feb 19, 2024
0
#67
I encountered someone like that about two months ago. He was on the back foot but I would say not a certain loser - I was a pawn up and my pieces were in a slightly better position. He walked away from the board and let the clock tick down for 20 minutes before I finally won on time but it was all very unsportsmanlike.
May 14, 2024
0
#68
Let's say I have 20 minutes on my clock playing White and I am winning.
Black has 15 minutes remaining, but abandons the game instead of resigning. It doesn't waste more time than when they discomnect on purpose, but less time. Ergo, I don't personally mind that so much as I am not sitting there waiting for the disconnect timer to time out.
May 15, 2024
0
#70
BourneRoot wrote:
they do it because they are mad and want to get back at you for winning so its there way of punishing you and wasting your time because they feel their time was wasted playing chess
If "time is wasted playing chess", it begs the question why play? It's like playing asking to plau Monopoly and then get upset when you are losing and saying "time is wasted playing Monopoly." No one forces them to play (at least, not that I am aware of.)
May 20, 2024
0
#71
Here is another reason I discovery today:
I like playing 15/10 rapid games. It gives enough time to think about situations.
the downside: sometimes the opponent takes his time to think - 5-10 minutes.
Since there is a 2 minute abandon timer, I sometimes use the opponents thinking time to check mails or something else on the phone.
Leaving the app starts the timer.
I rarely resign games. It’s a fight till the end mentality that many chess masters recommend in their videos.
I also don’t abandon games.
Today I had a losing position due to a middle game mistake. I wanted to play it to the end, since there is always a chance the opponent makes a mistake too. Especially in my rating range.
The opponent was thinking. I checked mails. Came back after less than 30 second and got the message that my opponent won due to me abandoning the game.
it was still 1:30 on the clock.
i did some research and found the abandon rules on chess.com. They say:
„NOTE: If a player disconnects in a totally lost position (say. -5 or worse), the game will be ruled abandoned after only 15 seconds, regardless of time control“
It might not be rage quitting. It might also be that they are not aware of this little unexpected side rule where the machine decides for the player after only 15 seconds.
Oct 12, 2024
0
#74
ldcn wrote:
I was mostly wondering if there was any practical benefit from abandoning a game rather than resigning. My assumptions seem to be correct though, they both count as a loss and there's no difference in rating gain or loss. As for reasons why people abandon games in losing positions, I suppose it boils down to bad sportsmanship and the fact that there is minimal to no punishment for doing so when playing online. Imagine people simply walking away in an over-the-board game, they would probably no longer be welcome in any chess clubs or on tournaments. I have to disagree with you there sean893 about being patient when people are stalling. I wouldn't wish for you to have to stay put if someone you played OTB suddenly stood up from their chair and walked away. But then again, if you find it educational, you do you.
It doesn't really bother me that much if a game is abandoned and the auto-resign timer starts. It's mildly annoying at most. However, my opinion is that people who repeatedly stall games (by purposefully losing on time when in a losing position, i.e. keeping the tab open but not making a move) should be punished a bit harsher than just "restricting them to playing other bad sports". A temporary ban would be appropriate. Seems like other online chess sites implement this.
People who keep playing rather than resigning in losing positions would be a different matter entirely. In lower levels (below 1200 or so, where I also belong), one should never resign in my opinion. A winning position doesn't mean anything for us because oftentimes we might blunder into a losing one, even if the material difference is several pieces. It's also good endgame practice.
I’m still learning and will usually resign on a major blunder in my middle game (like losing a queen or too much material because I wasn’t paying attention to lines of attack), where I feel I’m not going to learn much by continuing. Otherwise, I’ll keep going to see if my opponent blunders towards the endgame or if I can make better decisions. I never abandon games as I feel it’s better to just resign and give the opponent the win so they can move on to another match.
I’ve had several games today with players abandoning after I gained advantages and it just makes me shake my head.
I abandon games and let the clock run out when the person is in a position to easily check mate, but chooses to push pawns instead. Game I just finished, I had king and pawn. Opponent had 3 pawns, 1 knight, 1 rook, and queen. They were positioned in such a way that I couldn't take any of their pieces, if I moved my pawn they could take it leaving me with my king. My only option was to move my king. Multiple times they pushed one of their pawns forward instead of finishing the game with one of the few very easy mates available. THAT is why I let the time run out. If you have an obvious and easy mate you should take it. Pushing pawns forward is rude.
skill issue