Should all Chess Games be played out to their conclusions?

[AdminX]

"In world championship matches, when one player resigns, even some of the rated players cannot understand easily why the player resigned. Therefore our Championship tournament games are not understandable at least for 99.9% of chess players.

If we accept the fact that support for a sport depends on the number of people who follow the game and results, then if more people understand what is going on, more will follow it. Then if we can make chess understandable a thousand times more individuals, the public will support chess better.

If players continue their games until checkmate, all of the spectators can understand at least the last part of the games. Because they understand the games, they will enjoy them more. The point is that we currently tend to cut off the end of a nice story, and therefore games became incomprehensible and boring for most of the fans."

Full Story Here:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5057

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Definitely no....

[Samsunait]

Definitely yes....

I voted for Human only

[BubbaTough]

It is mean to make humans play out full games. If you did, I expect you would see many more help mate games...which are not really that constructive. Good luck forcing humans to play "well" all the way to mate.

-Sam

[Nimzovik]

[Graham Banks]

How boring if such a mandate was passed. Chess would lose a lot of players in my opinion.

[AdminX]

"Before we get to our readers's reaction, here's a little story that is relevant to the subject matter. Let's see if we can put it together correctly (it happened a couple of decades ago). A world-class grandmaster – let us call him Nigel Short – had a completely winning position in a game. His opponent, however, played on. After a few moves the GM addressed the opponent and said: "Excuse me, but do you know that I am a strong grandmaster and know how to win this position? It's trivially easy. Perhaps you should consider resigning?!" The opponent balked: "Let us play on," he said, "I want to see how you do it."

So the GM played on. After half a dozen moves his opponent decided he had had enough and offered his resignation. "Sorry," said the GM, "I do not accept your resignation." His opponent was nonplussed. "But you have to accept it. I can simply leave the board..." "Ah, but then you will be disqualified and all your other games will be forfeited," said the GM. "I don't believe that," said the player. "Where does it say so in the rules?" "In section seven, article 14b in the FIDE handbook," said the quick-witted GM, causing enough uncertainty in his opponent to force him to continue. And then the GM set to work carefully playing the game out to mate, much to the amusement of the spectators."

Some User Feedback:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5060

[Leto]

"Before we get to our readers's reaction, here's a little story that is relevant to the subject matter. Let's see if we can put it together correctly (it happened a couple of decades ago). A world-class grandmaster – let us call him Nigel Short – had a completely winning position in a game. His opponent, however, played on. After a few moves the GM addressed the opponent and said: "Excuse me, but do you know that I am a strong grandmaster and know how to win this position? It's trivially easy. Perhaps you should consider resigning?!" The opponent balked: "Let us play on," he said, "I want to see how you do it."

So the GM played on. After half a dozen moves his opponent decided he had had enough and offered his resignation. "Sorry," said the GM, "I do not accept your resignation." His opponent was nonplussed. "But you have to accept it. I can simply leave the board..." "Ah, but then you will be disqualified and all your other games will be forfeited," said the GM. "I don't believe that," said the player. "Where does it say so in the rules?" "In section seven, article 14b in the FIDE handbook," said the quick-witted GM, causing enough uncertainty in his opponent to force him to continue. And then the GM set to work carefully playing the game out to mate, much to the amusement of the spectators."

Some User Feedback:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5060

Funny story but such a rule would be unfair and would even allow mean people a way to grief other players. I wouldn't even think about subjecting chess engines to this rule.

[Terry McCracken]

"Before we get to our readers's reaction, here's a little story that is relevant to the subject matter. Let's see if we can put it together correctly (it happened a couple of decades ago). A world-class grandmaster – let us call him Nigel Short – had a completely winning position in a game. His opponent, however, played on. After a few moves the GM addressed the opponent and said: "Excuse me, but do you know that I am a strong grandmaster and know how to win this position? It's trivially easy. Perhaps you should consider resigning?!" The opponent balked: "Let us play on," he said, "I want to see how you do it."

So the GM played on. After half a dozen moves his opponent decided he had had enough and offered his resignation. "Sorry," said the GM, "I do not accept your resignation." His opponent was nonplussed. "But you have to accept it. I can simply leave the board..." "Ah, but then you will be disqualified and all your other games will be forfeited," said the GM. "I don't believe that," said the player. "Where does it say so in the rules?" "In section seven, article 14b in the FIDE handbook," said the quick-witted GM, causing enough uncertainty in his opponent to force him to continue. And then the GM set to work carefully playing the game out to mate, much to the amusement of the spectators."

Some User Feedback:
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5060

Amusing story and one I can relate to as so many dumbells force me to play on to mate over the internet.

Naturally, my answer is a big...NO!