Bump

I used to resign when I felt I had no chance at winning, but lately I've realized I'm stronger at the endgame than most other players at my rating level.  So now I play on.  I have saved a couple of games where my opponent made a mistake which allowed me to win.  But when it gets to where I am down to K vs KR, or K vs KQ, I will play until checkmate, but I won't run all over the board to prolong it needlessly.  I want to make sure my opponent knows how to play that ending before I give up.

I think this pretty much sums it up.

1. . . You CANNOT make your opponent resign.  Get over it.

2. . . You can resign whenever you feel like it.

Can we play some Chess now?

  When you have looked at GM's chess games, you happen to notice one THING.

When GMs have a lost position, GMs simply resign.  No excuses, no talk "  I am not a quitter", neither "I will learn something from that defeat"  if I stay in the game.

Well, so why should we play on?  So you could get some sick pleasure from seeing people go until the inevitable END?  And in the end you could look back and say " WOW I am good!!" to make you feel superior to the person who have lost the game?  I say F**K IT ".  I am a quitter and proud that I did not give you pleasure to get off the game!!  It is just a game, dude.  Get a life. 

So please resign as soon as possible and dont care what your opponent will think about you resigning that game.  It is just a game!!

If you sign up for say a move in 3 days then you take your chance with the persons personality what they will do being material down.  People are different and dont always follow what we think is right thing to do. When to resign is a persons opinion and that plays into the players character. The games here should be for study and so to be a piece down should be the goal not to get in that position in the first place, or you are wasting your study time trying to win a lost position.

As a member who once said that surrender is not an option, I didn't enjoy my first resignation at all. And although I still believe in fighting until the end, there comes a point in some games when defeat is the inevitable conclusion.

If your opponent has played a brilliant move that has earned him victory, then don't spoil his win, accept a checkmate as a lesson.

However, if it's been a slow fight of attrition with no clear leader, then save time and wave the white flag.

To each is own, I personally appreciate giving a ckeckmate in say 6 or 8 to moves, even though I cannot see it but anticipate a quick ending.

After all chess is all about one thing, wining the game.

And if and when I can do this, it gives me the satisfaction of accomplissment.

It is for me in life to achieve a goal.

I don't think you should resign, even if it looks like you lost, because it's good to fight until the bitter end, isn't it?

This is one of the rarest and best articles I have ever read.

buttonc wrote: It's a pity that this post is likely to be lost in the oblivion of forum history. It is useful enough to be developed and preserved and one of the read articles.

Actually, this IS an article. I copied it out of the forums specifically in order to make it more accessible. However, although ARTICLES are indexed individually (in the way that it would be fantastic if FORUM POSTS were), the site search facilities are neither very powerful - nor are they unified. e.g. use FORUMS -> Search to search forums, but READ -> Articles -> Search to search for articles. Furthermore, the material that members write is scattered all around the chess.com website (in the general forum area, group forums, articles. blogs, Team/Vote Match discussions, Notes, etc. etc.). Fortunately, Google site search provides a single mechanism for searching all of the publically visible part of chess.com.

It's a pity that this post is likely to be lost in the oblivion of forum history. It is useful enough to be developed and preserved and one of the read articles.

Another:

Being checkmated is a more degrading defeat that that through resignation.  It implies that you do not have foresight.

I'm not sure what the counter to this would be.

kco wrote: artfizz good post, just is who is the guidance ? in " the guidance says you should do it "

"It is generally considered proper chess etiquette to resign clearly lost positions. The proper time to resign should vary with one’s chess ability. Most beginners should probably play on until they are checkmated. But more advanced players should resign clearly lost positions when they are certain that if they were on the other side of the position, they could beat even a master."

(link for the above is: http://www.ksca.us/FAQ/Quick_Guide.pdf")  referenced in http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/those-who-refuse-to-resign-when-they-are-completely-lost?page=5

Different strokes for different people.

artfizz good post, just is who is the guidance ? in " the guidance says you should do it "

I think that this is a good list. Another I would add is that it lets the opponent know their superiority and the loser's inferiority.

You could add:

I get (don't get) bored.

nice comparison and contrast.

The bottomline is, some players are just not good sports.  Especially when they're facing rude players themselves.