I propose that those who resign lose half the rating points of someone who plays to checkmate. So may it be posted so may it be done 
The problem isnāt the player who plays to checkmate, but rather the player who plays to checkmate in 1. If you force an opponent to play out a lost game I think the least you can do is let them play checkmate. Is forcing an opponent to play to checkmate ruder than forcing them to play it out until the next move is checkmate??
Larry S. Cohen
Sometimes it works out if you play to checkmate. At one US Open (back when there was only one schedule) I was playing an A player a couple hundred points lower rated than me with the black side of an ed /cd Alekhine. It was still the opening and I played ā¦g6 so that I could fianchetto and castle. After playing it I took a second look and realized that his queen on e2 and knight on e4 allowed Nf6# (with my e7 pawn pinned, and covering the d7 escape square that my ā¦d6 had given. I remained calm and he never considered that an expert would allow an unforced mate in one in the opening. After he played b3 to contest the long diagonal I played ā¦Bg7 and let out an involuntary sigh of relief that finally made him take a second look and discover what heād missed.
I eventually won that game.
I remember an older player saying, āEveryone has the right to be checkmated.ā
I have often watched games that were played out to completion, even above the scholastic level. One exasperated player asked his opponent why he had not resigned when it was clear he was so ālost.ā The opponent replied that he wanted a clear example of what would happen so that he could use the game with his students. We have al seen games that were so āwonā and yet the player with the better position found ways to stalemate or even lose. Chess history is filled with swindles, recoveries, and blunders by players in ālostā positions. One little lad when admonished for playing on in a lost position told his much older opponent, āI thought maybe you would die. You donāt look so good.ā
I think that all the OPās suggestion would accomplish is a lot of players continuing to play until Mate in 1 and then resigning.
And how would that work out for the winner? Would he only get half as many rating points as he would if his opponent were checkmated? This idea seems to create more problems than it solves.
The only thing that would bother me is if they play to a āmate in oneā position and then sit there (or wander around the hall) until their time runs out. This has never happened to me, but Iāve seen it done several times. Otherwise, if they want to play until mate (or mate in one), it just gives me a chance to practice my mating skills. When Iām on the losing end, if I know Iām losing but I canāt see how the details are going to be worked out, I might play on long enough to get a free ātechniqueā lesson. Theoretically, I could also get that in skittles after the game, but (1) Nobody seems to want to do that anymore ā they just run and immediately put the game on their computer, and (2) Sometimes the other player doesnāt know the details either, and I end up escaping with a draw (or even a win in rare cases). The higher-rated the opponent, the more likely I am to resign earlier.
The 5th edition of the rulebook added 18G1 to handle such situation. Just make sure it really is the move of the person that is sitting/wandering (if the player in the strong position forgot to hit the clock then technically the player about to be mated is not yet āon moveā).
I had a situation like this once, but the opponent never made a claim. (I didnāt consider āOh, come on!ā a claim.) I stood at that board for about twenty minutes watching the game. The player (and I) were much more interested in the game on the adjacent board.
My wife had a game where her opponent abandoned the game with about 90 minutes on the clock. It was hopeless. After about 30 she asked the TD for a ruling but he refused to give one ābecause he might come backā. We werenāt happy.
Alex Relyea
This was very likely an incorrect ruling.