Chess players are an angry demographic.

I don't have any objection to the controversy. True, as you say, let's have a real discussion. And twice I quit OTB tournaments because the weird people brought me down. I have also found some good friends, healthy good people. And I love the kids, in spite of their bad habits (like playing to checkmate).

Mark Twain said: "Everybody talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it."
In my opinion, talking about resigning, letting time run out, asking for takeback, cheating, bad manners, good sportsmanship is close to useless, because the people who need to hear it aren't listening. So I try to tolerate it and not to get upset.

Also, that style of wild disjointed lack of logic and failure to comprehend, appears to me to apply across the board, to a whole generation or two, not just to chess players or forum posters. Cheers.

You only think they angry because you angry. Just learn how to kill them quicker.

i guess i don't have to deal with this much because i play faster games (ultra, bullet)

btw, i'm pretty bad at not wasting....

wow, what is logic? that sounds silly, but "i'm pretty bad at not wasting my time" is different than "i'm pretty good at wasting my time". i mean, logic is like reasoning but that pushes it onto another word.

Don't force your insecurities onto other people thanks.

Honestly I'd just avoid resigning because I know it bothers you so much.

@Eleuthero

"I'm a gentleman and if I drop even a minor piece I resign, especially if I'm down on position as well. My opponents are usually rated around 2000 so they're not idiots. "

To translate this:
1. I'm a gentleman and I resign when see I'm losing.
2. All players rated under 2000 are idiots.

1. You greatly missing the point of playing chess. In chess, there is always a chance to win, until the end. Your words proves you are far from gentleman, you are just quite frustrated old man who despises people who do not behaves as you want and that way do not "respect" your ex chess cariere. You shows clear arrogancy and narcisoism.

2. You greatly missing the point of playing chess. Especially between amateurs. Many amateurs are not idiots and sometimes plays on CM level. BTW, idiots hardly can learn to play chess.

@General0_0Advance Q.E.D.

@n321

Is this site total brimming with complete idiots who can't read or make a proper logical inference? If I say X is not Y it does NOT follow that non-X are Y. My statement simple quotes an arbitrary chess rating of 2000 as indicative of the fact that they're pretty good in chess and will finish me off with a huge edge like a dropped piece with zero compensation.

It does NOT follow that I'm saying that, say, a 1600 is an idiot. I'm making an affirmative statement and NOT a negative statement but that's your "logic". Please, for God's sake, take a course in simple deductive logic and learn how to read a rather simple argument. If I've received any confirmation of a previously held opinion about chess players from these chats it's that the ability to play chess is NOT a form of intelligence that transfers to any other discipline, especially language and rhetoric.

You simply missing what I'm saying and I see no point in further discussion regarding. To much confecence and arrogancy is not a sign of inteligence at all. Nor knowledgeable in chess or any game.

That is all, nothing to say more.

Is there any incentive in quitting very early when you are behind in the game?
The reason I am asking is because I recently had a game (in chess.com), where my opponent who was ranked about 40 points higher than me had a few blunders, I had 2 rooks and a knight along with some pawns, he only had a knight and 3 pawns but would not quit.
I decided to play along and promote one pawn to queen, and continue to strip all his pieces from the board before checkmate.
Although I only gained about 10 points my opponent lost 41.
Hence my question, is there incentive in quitting early when things go wrong?