an ultimate finish in my first game in Chess.com

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=472714896

Very cool!  Great job at not giving up or resigning after the loss of Queen.  It looked devestating, but you fought back brilliantly!

lol @ "Great job at not giving up or resigning after the loss of Queen." This is totally wrong advice. In a blitz game (especially online) it's ok, but really in general it's pretty disrepectful. I wish more people would resign after decisive material loss.

yeah in real game thats very depressing moment

@TheRussianPatzer: You're entitled to your opinion, but I should point out 3 things:

A). It wasn't advice, it was a congratulations.

B). If it WAS advice, it would lead to a win, whereas your 'advice' leads to a loss.

C). This obviously wasn't a 'decisive material loss.'  If it had been, dreamgamer would've lost.

Again, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I personally think it's much more disrespectful to tell dreamgamer that he/she should have resigned, after they proved that they played the superior game.

Look, with all due respect, he did not play "the superior game". At his level, players blunder all the time. This is why it is acceptable for him to play on (especially in quick time controls). In a real game though (30 minutes +) against a stronger opponent, this is just disrepectful. I just want him to be aware that when he improves and starts playing stronger opposition, this type of behavior will be looked down upon (and mostly I was just replying to your "interesting" comment which seemed to encourage not resigning). If he doesn't resign, that's fine. It shouldn't be encouraged though.

why disrespectful? if they want to steal the point from me, they have to work for it. disrespectful or not.

Well, it depends on the level of players what's a decisive material loss or not.  Obviously at this level it's not so decisive.

I absolutely encourage not resigning, whether I am playing the person or otherwise. If I have such an easy win, then prove it!!! Would you give up a Rook vs. Rook and Bishop endgame even if it was technically lost? Of course not! (At least I hope). Also, if people give up when I'm winning I can't practice my endgame and/or middlegame. Lastly, when I have a beautiful mating pattern I would prefer it to be played out to the end than have my opponent resign. I think that dreamgamer played a great game other than one slip up and was absolutely the superior player (could you come back from a position like that?)

You must be joking. Against the guy he was playing I could probably come back from being more than a queen down, since he showed no sense of direction in his play at all. If anything, I can not possible praise dreamgamer for his play. It had all the marks of a blitz game (obvious blunders everywhere and no plan at all). Sometimes a swindle can be interesting (like in Gawain Jones' recent rapid game), but if the opponent won a queen and then started blundering like mad afterwards there's just nothing to talk about. Also, I'm always very confused when people like you say "if people give up when I'm winning I can't practice my endgame and/or middlegame." How much material are we talking about here? If it's a pawn then sure, but what about a queen? You don't know how to win a queen up? You really think you need practice with that? Getting endgame practice is very important, but when I talk about endgame practice I'm usually talking about positions with lots of fight left in them. If somebody is just up a piece in an easily winning endgame, then I don't consider that serious practice anymore. I can agree with you about the R v R&B endgame, but that's because it's very difficult to win. Even masters have trouble winning Q v R endgames, so that's when it's ok to play on. Just remember, when you play on in a totally lost position you are wasting more than just your own time. You are wasting the other person's time, who might want to play another game or do something else. Instead though, they need to sit and play another 20-30 moves up a queen for you to be convinced that you're going to lose the game. I suppose even then you could sit around and let your clock run down hoping he'll disconnect or mysteriously drop dead. So yes, it was the practical thing to do in dreamgamer's case, but I don't think anybody should praise another player for not resigning. Not resigning is just something you do, but it's never something you should be proud of.

I disagree wholeheartedly, as I said. Of course against soemone rated 500 below you you could win while down a queen, but what about someone that was rated 100 below you, as did dreamgamer. As I am about 100 below you, I could say with almost complete certainty that I would have given you nothing and finished an easily won game. And also, the uber-elitist "He sucked because I could beat him" is just rhetoric, imagine if after you won a game that you felt proud about, someone came by and said "I can not possibly praise TheRussianPatzer for his play" and started giving reasons well above your head. You would immediately think "What a loser" or something along those lines. And, my example with the rook and bishop is exactly the same.  People at different levels have trouble with different things: Just as you and I would have trouble with the R vs. R+B, at dreamgamers level people can have trouble converting even a queen advantage (as was seen here.) Clearly this middle-game position did have fight in it. Many times I have done exactly what dreamgamer did here and channel all my remaining resources to one final charge, it sometimes works.  I completely applaud his willingness to fight on even after a setback. Good work dreamgamer! Keep on playing this way and you will improve tremendously.

@ TheRussianPatzer: I'm afraid you are confused regarding the situation I was discussing.  I congratulated dreamgamer regarding this one particular game, in these particular circumstances, on playing on and not giving up hope.  I did so because the outcome of events objectively demonstrated the decision to be the correct one that many other players would not have made.  I did not advocate that every player always play until the bitter end of checkmate.

Again, to emphasize the point, I was discussing this single game.  And discussing this single game means that I'm considering all the circumstances surrounding it, including his rating level, the fact that it is an online game, the possibility that his opponent could make blunders, etc.

You said my congratulations was "totally wrong advice." To say my statement was "totally wrong" means that you believe it to be completely wrong and no part of it is accurate.  The only reasonable way to interpret this statement then is that you believe what dreamgamer did in this game was incorrect, and that dreamgamer should have resigned this specific game ... including all the circumstances taken into consideration … and that they should have given up even though events obviously supported his decision to play on.

I know you’re backtracking from that original position in your recent posts (it’s hard to defend the idea that someone should have resigned a won game), but in your original comment, this was the clear message given. 

The fact is, I congratulated a player for making what proved to be the correct decision, a decision that you, despite your 1700+ rating, would have botched … telling them they should have resigned.  It’s not much fun to play a queen down, and just fight back with what you have left, and I credit dreamgamer for sticking it out and not throwing the game away and doing something easier.

And you can claim that you could easily win in dreamgamer’s position, more than a queen down.  Probably you could, given your rating.  But along the same lines as condude2 asked, could you have done it when your skill level was equal to dreamgamer’s?  Would you have had the confidence and the ability to use what skills you did have to wait for your opportunity and win the game?  It doesn’t sound like it.

And for the record, dreamgamer did play the superior game.  To argue otherwise is to suggest that the game of chess is so flawed that a substandard game with black will emerge victorious over a superior game by white.  The game consists of all the moves played until the end ... whether that end be checkmate, resignation, or a draw.  Playing 18 good or superior moves means nothing if you give the whole game away on your 19th move. The last move doesn't get excused from being considered part of your game.  So yes, he did play the superior game.  I’m not saying he played better move-for-move, but overall the outcome of the game leaves no reasonable player any doubt as to who played the better game: the player who won.

Again, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I feel regarding the situation under discussion, my congratulations is objectively superior to your ‘advice,’ because I applauded a decision that led to a win, whereas you advocate a decision that would have led to a loss.

Resigning vs. Continuing: A larger discussion

While some situations do call for a classy resignation, many others do not.  The game does not end when the player with the advantage decides to end it.  It ends when someone resigns, is checkmated, or a draw transpires.  And until the game ends, I believe the decision to resign should be left up to the individual facing the question – not his/her opponent. I've won a lot of games in which I was down material and thought it would probably be decisive, but I felt I had possible winning chances, and events proved me right.  Other times, I’ve been defeated.  Big deal.  That’s the nature of chess: some games you win, some you lose … and some ‘lost’ games you win, and some ‘lost’ games you lose.

And quite frankly, I’m usually annoyed by opposition who end the game as soon as I win a decided advantage.  I prefer being able to play on for a while and attempt a checkmate, as condude2 also expressed.  In fact, my personal favorite game I ever played is my favorite solely because of my final checkmating move ... not the overall game.  Had they resigned, that game would not be nearly as special to me.  So what some people find disrespectful/respectful is not universal. 

I personally think it's much more disrespectful to demand players to give up because you think you're so superior to them that you can't make a mistake yourself and you can't possibly lose to them. 

Now, I can understand that mentality at the GM level, where the skill is obviously very, very high, and playing an extra 10-20 moves is truly exhausting (given how deeply they calculate), but at the ~1500 levels, players need to get over their egos.  Even at the GM level, mistakes – even big ones – do on occasion happen.  Kramnik missed a mate-in-1 against Deep Fritz in 2006, Kasparov resigned a drawn position against Deep Blue in 1994, Ivanchuk missed a one-mate move against Anand (in quick play) in 1994.  If they can miss those types of moves, what over miscalculations/blunders can an amateur player make, thereby reopening his opponent’s chances?

Regarding wasting other people’s time: these games are timed.  What I or my opponent chooses to do with our 30 minutes (or whatever the controls may be) is each of our own respective business.  Do some people abuse it?  Of course.  But if you don’t want to sit around for a possible full 60 minutes, then choose a different time control.  You signed up for it, now deal with it.  To complain about your time and how your opponent is wasting it is just childish ... especially regarding this situation when said opponent used it to win the game!

To my understanding, black didnt spot the mate because he was not looking for it after being a queen up.

Plus, there have been a couple of times when I have played being a queen down, but the only reason behind it was to take it out on myself.

Moreover, if the opponent wins your queen with a trap, i follow that u should resign.(given there is considerable material imbalnce). playing on in a hopeless position is downright waste of time.

Every situation is different, and every player is different.  I'll resign under some circumstances that others probably wouldn't.  At the same time, I suspect I'll keep playing under different circumstances under which those same people would resign.

For example, I played a game once where I was down K+R vs K+R+B+5P.  I kept on playing, and eventually after much manuevering (and mistakes on his part) I took out all 7 pawns/pieces and won the game.

If the situation had been a K+N+B vs K+R+B+5P, I think I'd have resigned.  I don't feel nearly as comfortable or as confident with my N+B as I do with a single rook.  However, there are probably others who would do the exact opposite.  Down K+R vs K+R+B+5P they would resign, but would feel a little more confident if instead of a Rook they had a N+B and they would keep playing.

Resigning too depends on well you think your opponent is guessing your plans.  If I have one shot left in my locker, and my opponent keeps making specific moves to defend against that particular trick ... well, maybe 20 moves down the road something will break, but I don't wait for that.  If I don't see an immediate or reasonable plan of attack, or if the one plan I do see is obviously being defended or is defeated, then I'll usually resign once the plan is dead.

But it really depends on both the specific situation and my current mood.  I played a fellow one time and he had the advantage of R+B+3P vs 2P.  I liked the position of my 2 pawns, they were connected and passed, and reasonably well on their way to the 8th rank, and I kept playing.  At a critical moment, he made a simple miscalculation, which failed to stop my pawn's promotion, which led to an immediate win (the newly promoted queen was on the square needed for checkmate).  Another ending with exactly the same pieces, but a different set-up, or even if it had been the exact same position but I'd been in a different mood or mindset, and I easily might have resigned the game instead.

In general, I lean toward the advice that if you are at all interested in winning/drawing, you should play as long as YOU think you have reasonable chances of winning/drawing.  But ultimately, everyone is different in determining what they personally consider to be their reasonable chances of success.

I seriously can't repond to everything you said in your response to me, but I will make a few points.

Here's your original comment: Very cool!  Great job at not giving up or resigning after the loss of Queen.  It looked devestating, but you fought back brilliantly!

Here's my original comment: lol @ "Great job at not giving up or resigning after the loss of Queen." This is totally wrong advice. In a blitz game (especially online) it's ok, but really in general it's pretty disrepectful. I wish more people would resign after decisive material loss.

First of all, I would like to admit that I had a wrong choice of words. What you said isn't really "advice", but more of a compliment. I called it "advice" because you comment seems to encourage this type of behavior. While I understand that you said this because of the outcome of his game, I still find it hard to justify this. You don't need to scold him for not resigning (I certainly wouldn't), but I don't see why you would praise him for that. It's certainly not something worth admiring. Especially since we don't know his intentions (you may say it was because he has "fighting spirit", but often it's just out of spite in hopes that the opponent will drop dead or something).

Another thing is that I don't agree with you saying that he fought back brilliantly. I would understand if he took his remaining pieces and created some attack. That however, is not what happened. His opponent just happened to miss a mate in 1. I understand that you might say "you're just saying that because you're a stronger player than him," and I get that. However, surely there is something which we should consider objectively good and bad. Even a weak player knows when play is strong. What I witnessed in that game was certainly not inspiring, and that's my assessment even with his rating taken into account.

That's all I meant with this original comment. I just don't think you should praise somebody for not resigning. I only said this because this guy is probably new to the game, and when he becomes a stronger player I want him to understand good chess ettiquette. There's far too many people out there who act like children at the chess board despite their high ratings. I can't count how many times I've seen games on icc with master level players and one of them will let their clock run down one move before mate. Maybe I'm just an idealist, but even if there's a slight chance to draw a game when you're down decisive material, why can't you just give that up for the sake of being a nice guy? It might really make that person's day to have a win, and if you somehow do draw I assure you that your opponent won't be happy. It's not all about winning you know, sometimes it's just better to let them have it an leave a good impression.

I thought I would end the comment there but actually I want to share a short story (example really). I was in a tournament about a year ago, and it was the most serious tournament I had ever been to at the time (U2000 with a cash prize of around $150 for first place or something like that). The time control was 2 hours + 5 sec delay, so as you can imagine the games took a very long time and they were very energy consuming. In one of my games I faced a guy in his 70s, and I won a piece in the early middlegame. I kept the pressure on until he had to sacrifice a rook to save his queen. He did. He played on until I eventually won on time... a rook and bishop up and about to queen a pawn... It amazed me that somebody at that age could act so immature. I of course was really tired and wanted to go home since that was the last game of the day. Yes it was his right to play on, but he could've just let me have it and then I wouldn't have been left with a sour taste in my mouth. I want to make as many people as possible aware that this type of behavior is (or at least should) be looked down upon. That's why I really resent any sort of encouragement of playing on in lost positions, even if it's the most practical thing to do.

@TheRussianPatzer: That's fair enough.  We can both retract a few items of what we wrote, but I think we may have to agree to disagree on several items.

I'll admit I perhaps overreacted with my term “brilliantly."  My motivation to use this term came from the following: I've always admired the human element of the game of chess (i.e. - the blunders).  Without them, I feel chess is merely a bland, boring study that should be left to supercomputers (just my personal opinion, I'm not saying everyone needs to think this way).

Anyways, with that mindset, I always find it thrilling to follow games on any level in which one player appears to be down, yet has the confidence to keep playing, and understand the human element well enough to wait for his/her chance (i.e. – when the opponent blunders).  This is (presumably) what dreamgamer did, and yes, I did do admire it.  I would have to play over the game again to decide if I really thought his comeback was brilliant or if I was carried away in the moment and perhaps used a stronger-than-accurate adjective.

But either way, what I DO see as praiseworthy is dreamgamer’s decision when faced with the option of resigning the game.  Whether by chance or boredom or over-optimism or a good feel for that particular game … I feel he/she made the correct choice which led to a win.  It’s a choice that many players would not have made, and thus would have been defeated.  So, yes, I see this action as worthy of commendation, much as I would a good saving move. 

Ultimately, I see resignation as a decision for the player.  And so when a player makes the decision to continue playing when they have the option of resigning, and their choice ultimately is proven correct when they win (through either luck or cleverness), I feel like patting them on the back.

Now, you are correct that it’s possible that dreamgamer made the decision out of sheer boredom, or spite, or simply had nothing else better to do.  And I’ll admit, if that was their rationale for their decision to keep playing … rather than wanting to win and watching for their opportunity … yes, a lot of the excitement just exited the game for me.

But that doesn’t appear to be the case.  There were lots of pieces left on the board, the opponent wasn’t highly rated and was reasonably (if not likely) capable of making blunders … so while the prospect was far from good, this was not someone letting two queens and a rook chase a lone king all over the board into final checkmate.  And personally, without being too harsh, does it not seem rather disrespectful to you to begin suggesting that perhaps dreamgamer’s motives were out of spite or in the hopes that his opponent would drop dead?

And just like we don’t know what dreamgamer’s motives were, nor do we know what his/her ambitions are.  Not everyone wants to enter tournaments and get rating points and earn titles.  Some just like coming to chess.com and playing the game, and enjoying that occasional thrilling come-from-behind victory, or creating that clever mating combination, or winning that rare but occasional scholar’s mate.

CHESS ETIQUETTE

I can appreciate your interest in chess etiquette, but I’ve simply won too many ‘lost’ games (and lost ‘won’ games) to endorse resignation when the going gets tough … even when the going gets very tough.  And I’ve won enough games in this manner that it has nothing to do with respect or a lack thereof … it’s simply recognizing the reality that people can and often do make mistakes in the latter stages of the game just as surely as they do in the beginning.  It’s not a vague hope.  It’s a reality that changes the course and outcome of many, many games.

Obviously I resign many games … and I understand some people abuse the liberty to continue playing, and sometimes it gets ridiculous and disrespectful … but as a general rule I always play until I really don’t think I have any reasonable chance of winning/drawing.  And while I’m not titled or highly ranked, I’ve played many of these come-from-behind games at a rating level that is comparable to local tournaments. 

You need to be careful authoritatively proclaiming what chess etiquette is and isn’t.  Chess etiquette and chess rules are differentiated for a reason.  Rules are standard and everyone needs to follow them the same way; views on chess etiquette may vary among different players and not everyone necessarily agrees on it or feels the need to follow it … and often straying from conventional or traditional views on the subject have nothing to do with respecting or disrespecting your opponent.

A fellow I know who is very active in the local chess activities in my area (he heads up 3 chess clubs, promotes it among the kids, earned a grant for money to help local kids get USCF memberships, and I think even visits the jail and plays with the inmates on a weekly basis, etc.) very often discourages the kids from resigning … often because he sees opportunities that they don’t.  The point is they get to play out the game, learn from it, keep at it, know that they can solve problems (even intimidating ones), and not to give up when the going gets tough.  It’s been suggested that beginners can often learn things better watching a more experienced player checkmate them in a lost position than they could trying to work through chess notation and diagrams at home.

So, the act of postponing resignation until the inevitable is not universally accepted – even in chess circles – as disrespectful.  And as described by both condude2 and myself, we actually enjoy being able to play out games in which we’ve won an advantage, sometimes even a huge advantage.  You can read other forums on this site where the topic is discussed, and I think you’ll find many of us are bothered by resignations that we consider premature.  There are two sides to this discussion … Please understand that to proclaim your viewpoint as “chess etiquette” and insist we’re disrespecting you if we do not adhere to it, is disrespectful in its own way.

Here’s a forum on the subject with over 200 posts that will help you understand that not everyone holds to the view that postponed resignation is a sign of disrespect. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-dont-players-resign?page=1 The individual initiating the topic had intended to focus it on players who don’t resign simply out of spite or vengeance, but as happens on these forums, the discussion expanded broadly.  You’ll find individuals agreeing with both our positions on the subject.

A nice blog entry on the subject was written by a former chess.com staff member, found here: http://www.chess.com/blog/Baseballfan/resigning-too-early where he provides his reasons for postponed resignations.  He also directs it specifically to the situation in which most of us find ourselves at chess.com (being an untitled amateur).

Site user kevingong wrote a similar blog in which he blundered an entire piece against a player rated almost 150 points ahead of him in a rated USCF tournament, but didn’t resign and was glad that he didn’t (he fought to a draw). http://www.chess.com/blog/kevingong/never-give-up4

WGM Natalia Pogonina wrote a very nice article on this topic addressing good ways in which resigning can be handled: http://www.chess.com/article/view/when-should-one-resign I would recommend reading it.

Personally, I think that saying that players should resign when YOU feel it is appropriate that they do so is much more disrespectful than continuing to play the legal moves until the end of the game.  But, again, this is my opinion, and we may have to agree to disagree on this subject.  It appears you’ve had a bad experience with someone who took this liberty beyond what you felt was reasonable (as I agree some players often do), but you need to remember that your experience does not exist in isolation … and other people have other experiences just as real that support the opposite viewpoint.

To cover the last point, you’re correct that chess isn’t all about winning … but nor is it an exercise designed to make people feel good.  The point of chess is to checkmate the King, and if someone can’t do that I don’t see any reason to reward them with a win just to spare their feelings.  Nor do I see any reason why we should punish players for early mistakes and ignore the reality of late-game mistakes. 

Also … if you truly are interested in respecting your opponent, you will never hand them a pity victory, or give them a game that you think you have a chance to win but simply won’t try because you might bum them out.  If someone ever resigned to me in that fashion (and I suspect it did happen one time), I would feel very disrespected as a chess player, and it would leave a sour taste in my mouth.  It’s nearly tantamount to throwing a game.

To conclude my VERY long comment, I’ll simply say this: I believe the victor of any chess match should generally* be the player who makes the next-to-last mistake … not the player who simply makes the first mistake, even if it’s a big one.

*I write “generally” because I’m sure there’s always exceptions that can be found!

thanks for your suggestions mates

"I've always admired the human element of the game of chess (i.e. - the blunders).  Without them, I feel chess is merely a bland, boring study that should be left to supercomputers (just my personal opinion, I'm not saying everyone needs to think this way)."

Well you can keep that personal opinion, because I totally disagree. While chess is won by blunders (a perfect game would probably lead to a draw), huge blunders are rarely very interesting. If huge blunders were so interesting, why do we watch grandmasters play instead of amatuers? If you're talking about small blunders, then I agree (making a positional concession or losing a pawn to some interesting tactic for example), but remember what kind of blunders you were talking about when you made that comment. In dreamgamer's game, the blunders were very big. I'm not saying that to demean him, as every great player was once a beginner. I'm saying that so we're clear on your stance, which seems to be that blundering a queen in a blitz game and then winning when your opponent blundered to a mate in one is what makes chess interesting.

"does it not seem rather disrespectful to you to begin suggesting that perhaps dreamgamer’s motives were out of spite or in the hopes that his opponent would drop dead?"

No, it doesn't seem rather disrespectful to assume that. In fact, it would be disrepectful to assume the opposite (that he thought he had a serious chance to come back from a queen loss). Even beginners know that being a queen down is usually enough to lose, and I guess that on another day dreamgamer's opponent would've won that game. I'm not saying that he shouldn't have played on, as clearly it proved to be the right decision, but I don't have much optimism that his motives were good. In the end, I have no idea what was running through his mind (which is why I don't insist on this), but I have no good reason to assume otherwise. Don't think that playing out of spite is so bad or something. I play out of spite sometimes too (it's just that I allow myself far less material deficit than a queen), but usually I will have one small idea of counterplay in mind and when that idea is gone I resign. In many people's case, that idea is simply the hope that they might get stalemated, or their opponent will disconnect, or their opponent will run out of time (even when there is still enough time to finish the game). Call me cynical, but I suspect dreamgamer's motives fit in the spite category.

Anyways, we can't keep writing each other essays. I just want to make it clear that I acknowledge a person's right to play on for unfortunate reasons, but I would like to see a lot more people not doing that.

Really, TheRussianPatzer? " I don't have much optimism that his motives were good" Oh yes, heaven forbid that a beginner play on in a middle game situation, he must have been trying to waste the other person's time. By saying that he was trying to spite his opponent clearly shows a lack of insight into how a regular person's mind works (regular because I'm not sure about yours.) I've played on in positions like this hundreds of times and never once did spiting my opponent even cross my mind.  I think, like I said, that below ~1600 we should completely play on positions like that, if anything to possibly learn something new from later in the game.

Lol you are a master of manipulating peoples' words. Here's what I said: "In the end, I have no idea what was running through his mind (which is why I don't insist on this), but I have no good reason to assume otherwise. Don't think that playing out of spite is so bad or something. I play out of spite sometimes too (it's just that I allow myself far less material deficit than a queen), but usually I will have one small idea of counterplay in mind and when that idea is gone I resign. In many people's case, that idea is simply the hope that they might get stalemated, or their opponent will disconnect, or their opponent will run out of time (even when there is still enough time to finish the game). "

Do you even know what spite means? It means just because, or just for the sake of it. So basically if you're playing out of spite you are playing without much hope to win (if any). Now yes, I did make a comment about hoping for your opponent to drop dead, which was pretty cynical. However, that is meant in great sarcasm. Of course nobody really hopes their opponent will drop dead. 

I especially am confused by this: "I've played on in positions like this hundreds of times and never once did spiting my opponent even cross my mind."

Again, do you know what spite means? Spiting is not an action, as spite is not a verb. Everyone plays out of spite at one point or another. What dreamgamer did was perfectly acceptable. I just don't think it should be encouraged or specifically pointed out as an admirable thing to do.