Why resign a game?
Sort:
Maybe "never surrender" works for you but it doesn't work for me. I don't want to be constantly reminded about some stupid blunder I made in an even or possibly winning position. And I don't want to waste time on a hopeless loss when I could be working on some other game with drawing and/or winning chances. But that's just me. Someone else might be able to play on with a K vs K+Q and hope for a once-in-a-lifetime draw without being depressed or pissed off, but I usually can't get that cold-blooded. Maybe I could if my opponent had forced me to mate them when they could've resigned 20 or more moves ago.
I also agree.
Good players know when to resign and they do. Nuff Said Look at the ratings of those who refuse to resign !
In a real war, I would never surrender. The potential consequences of doing so could be quite torturous and regrettable.
In chess, it is admirable to "soldier on"...but just up to a point. The potential consequences of continuing to do so, after that point...well...quite torturous and regrettable.
Reb wrote:
Good players know when to resign and they do. Nuff Said Look at the ratings of those who refuse to resign !
Ok,I agree.But what if he don't checkmate or win that material,still there is one word:
Never resign!!
zschess wrote:
Reb wrote:
Good players know when to resign and they do. Nuff Said Look at the ratings of those who refuse to resign !
Ok,I agree.But what if he don't checkmate or win that material,still there is one word:
Never resign!!
That's two words...
Yeah,you're correct.
To know when to resign and understanding why losing the chess-game brings you to a higher level. Losing a chess-game is all part of the game.
To continue a (very) bad position game makes you a double loser!
I was going to resign cos i knew he could mate me next move.However i played on and to my delight he missed it.Only resign if its absolutely hopeless.
Its an interesting thought why we think people need to quit it seems hopless to win. Maybe when people do not resign in a lost position, there is something to say about the persons philosophy or character. It also might tell something about the other persons philosophy or character.
ChessStrategist wrote:
In a real war, I would never surrender. The potential consequences of doing so could be quite torturous and regrettable.
Very easy to say from the comfort of your computer chair. That decision would be made much more difficult if you were freezing, starving, out-of-ammo, and encircled by the enemy.
bigpoison wrote:
ChessStrategist wrote:
In a real war, I would never surrender. The potential consequences of doing so could be quite torturous and regrettable.
Very easy to say from the comfort of your computer chair. That decision would be made much more difficult if you were freezing, starving, out-of-ammo, and encircled by the enemy.
I'm a veteran...how about you?
My uncle was a P.O.W., captured by the Nazi's, WW2. Not good.
You are freezing, starving, being encircled by the enemy, out of ammo? What are you, stupid? You should have saved one bullet. Problem solved.
Do you wish your Uncle would have saved one bullet?
Do you have a Sam Browne belt, too?
No comprende? I don't care what my uncle did. That was his choice.
I told you mine. You would deny me my choice???
>>I play chess because I thoroughly enjoy abject lessons in humility<<
Now I see. You are a masochist. You would prefer to be captured, tortured and otherwise mistreated....maybe even starved or executed, in bondage.
Hey...if that floats your boat, viva la difference.
Nah, I wouldn't deny you your choice. I just think your choice would be much different were you faced with the actuality of the situation.
I've been wrong plenty of times before, though.
I never noticed the redundancy of that sentence in my profile. "...abject lessons in humility." Sounds like a knucklehead trying to sound smart to me.
I should probably edit that to "abject lessons."
>>I just think your choice would be much different were you faced with the actuality of the situation.<<
See, that's a big difference between you and me. I don't challenge your choice; but you would challenge mine. You claim to know better than me what I would do in a fatal situation.
I have done a lot of living. And, having faced death many times...along with some great suffering in living...I know that death is not the worst thing that can happen to me.
You think otherwise. Good for you. I hope that you don't ever get captured alive by the "nasties"...or you might want to reconsider. But, it would be too late to do so. Shrug. However, since you are a masochist, it appears to me that you would enjoy the abuse.
In this environment it's probably better to stick it out and see if you can't learn something from the situation. But in a tournament, it's considered polite to resign when it's obvious there is no hope. Better to resign and go on to the next game than waste you and your opponent's time and mental stress.
Chess is an ancient game based on military strategy. Military men in ancient times, as now were taught never surrender while they still have the means to resist. As a relatively new member of this website, I have already had a few opponents resign (surrender) at the first sign of a strategic disadvantage or in the face of an opponents tactical superiority. I don't understand that at all. Shifts in strategic and tactical advantage occur suddenly and frequently on the battlefield and on the chessboard. In chess (a bloodless sport), this is the point where the game actually becomes more interesting. Once we lose the advantage over our opponent, and the pressure is on, we must become more cunning and resourceful. Operating under such conditions, hones our skills, ultimately making us better chess players. Never Surrender.
As long as I have a chance to fight for a draw I play on
Some games are very clear in the end who will win