Opponent: I Should Resign on move 9 a piece down. Agree?

When I started playing chess, I had no idea what I was doing and the way I learned how to play was coming on this site and playing people. Most of my early games, I did things like hang pieces, forget certain rules, etc. etc. I learned strategies through some books; and through repetition made it so I just about never hang pieces anymore. However, I learned THE MOST when I lost a game, pure and simple.

"You can learn a line from a win, and a book from a defeat." -Paul Brown.

That quote means that before you become a dominant chess player, you have to lose first. I lost A LOT when I first started playing chess, but I found that the harder my opponents were, even if they had me beat early, I'd learn from them late. I played people hundreds of points higher than me and would get dominated by them, but later through analyzation would come to see what I was doing wrong. Computer analysis of finished games helps too.

The point is, if you play good opponents you're going to get games where it's clear early you're going to lose. This happened to me a lot of times, and personally I'm glad I played out those lost games. I truly believe it made me a better player. At your level, you should DEFINATELY play a game to try to learn from it.

WITH THAT SAID, if I was a grandmaster, and I did something stupid, like losing my queen by move 10 for no compensation, I'd probably just give up. Because at that point I'd be good enough where getting beat down isn't going to teach me anything. If you get to a point where you're REALLY good, and it's clear you're not going to win, it's considered polite to resign.

But as I said, at your level I think playing it out could teach you something. Endgame play, maybe how to fight for a draw. I learned that if I'm down material early, it's okay to sacrifice the rest to attempt to get the king. I learned because one game I was so far down early material wise I just used the rest of it to destroy the cover around the king and go for his throat. Can't remember what happened but I think I either won, or was very close to winning. I learned a lot through playing games that looked early like I had no shot of winning.

For you, when I look at this game, you can learn this: Always be careful of pawns getting too close to your last row. Even if it's the middlegame, and you still have big time pieces, like you queens and rooks and such, it's never to early to promote a pawn if you can. I've seen guys have chances to promote early, but don't due to missing the oppurtunity. It's simply because they're used to only looking for pawn promotion near the endgame. While that's usually when you'd look to make a pawn a piece, it doesn't always HAVE to be. You may already know that, but it's what I took from this game.

So should you resign by move 9? Only if you believe you know enough that you can't learn anything from playing it out. Your opponent was a jerk. Asking people to resign is ALWAYS rude. Chess is a gentlemen's game, and both sides are given teh chance to resign when they feel the time is right for them too. From now on, do not resign until YOU want to, not if your opponent asks you too.

P.S. Sorry about the long speech-like post, had a lot to say.

I feel it is totally up to the losing player as to when they should resign. If they feel they are getting some value out of the game or have a slight chance to atleast draw then why not continue.

I personaly like to play the games out when I am in the winning postion so I can continue to improve/practice my endgame.

Players who don't like people to play on are probably weak in end games, and should be put to the test.

I also agree that the higher up the ratings you are the earlier you should resign.

That's my two cents

What he said.

You have an odd definition of "good sportsmanship".  I'm not saying throw the pieces, make a stink, try and distract your opponent with your bad breath...  In what other sport are you expected to give up when you are losing?  I'd personally characterize giving up as poor sportsmanship.  I agree with the last poster that deciding when to surrender should be totally on the person trying to hang on.  Kasparov played on in a "hopeless position" in the last game against Deep Blue.  So did Topalov in his game against Anand.  While they both eventually resigned, I don't find it bad form that they continued to fight.

Endgame positions have a few different characteristics concerning pawns... in king and pawn endgames it's useful to have more pawns on their original square vs your opponent's pawn on original squares because the 2 move vs 1 move option will let you win tempo battles.

In many other endgames with pieces left on the board, it's often useful to have the base of your pawn chain as far away from the action as possible (such as on your 2nd rank) because these will be targets for the enemy.

So it's not the space or moves away from original squares I'd look at.  In the rook and knight endgame what will count against black is 1) black can't stop the rook from infiltrating due to 3 open files and 2) pawn targets on both sides of the board mean black will be overworked on defense.

So black will try active defense, but shouldn't be able to generate a passer... at least not a dangerous one... bottom line is the rook can play on both sides of the board and the knight is too slow.

It pays to study basic endgames :D

Still takes technique though, if I had to blitz the ending against a much stronger player I might even lose heh :)  But yes, it's a completely winning position for white as long as he doesn't screw it up :)

In that final position white is not winning, Kc7 and I don't see what's next.

4.Rf8+ does the trick though :)

+1

this is a nonsense i think, maybe for stadistic porpuse this will be ok...

But if you're going to discuss wheter he should've resigned or not, then THAT's a waste of time, people have their own individual thinking proceses, and their individual experiences that build that process, so everyone has their own opinion and its ok!

A rook down is a long way back but not the end of the world...until you lose for example a couple of pawns and then I would call it a day.

Player A: Offers handshake

Player B: draw?

Player A: No, I am offering your resignation.

This is what I feel like doing sometimes.

I've got a low rating - but although there was someone here who said that they get annoyed when they play in a losing position, I once played a blitz match. I saw that my position, sanely, was losing. So I tried once last trick - I lured a rook protecting the back rank to take a hanging bishop that I placed last move. I lost because I had 0.8 seconds left, and I have a poor connection, but that move gave me a mate-in-1 from one of my rooks controlling an open file.

So I say to you - low rated people can miss things - I know I fell for a Scholar - style mate after thwarting the first two attempts. But same can happen to your opponent, so play on!

The last OTB tournament I played in was a G25/5 second delay rated quad tournament.  I won 2 out of 3 games.  In both of the games I won, I lost a bishop very early without compensation.

You should play on.

I would agree that resignation at move # 33 would seem appropriate here. I also agree that no one should demand another to resign. 

You make a good point, but here's the thing--at that rating, the game isn't over yet. I remember very clearly in a tournament about 13 years ago (was a 700 then), knowing my opponent had a simple 2-rooks mate in 3, and playing it out anyway. He blundered a rook and lost. That was -common- at that rating. At your rating, when someone goes down a pawn and loses all initiative, it's often enough for a win, but you're not usually insulted when they play that out a bit longer. When they lose a piece, sure. At his rating (no offense intended), a piece does not always mean the game. It usually does, but one question I ask my students is "how much material do you need, in general, to be confident of a win? A pawn? 2? A piece? More?" and the usual answer is a bit more than a piece. Usually 2 pieces or a rook, but not a minor piece. 

I've played out a piece-down game against a FM for 20-something moves until I had no ideas left, and then resigned...Partly because I didn't feel right resigning before move 10, partly because he was making every move instantly, and partly because I wanted to try to find compensation. When I was out of things to try, and knew I had nothing left to play for, that was the time to resign.

You got dominated - BUT - a 1413 player certainly has no business demanding that you resign.  My own metric is 'if we switched places, could I easily win against a solid player in this position?', if the answer is yes - I resign.

By move 36, yes, you should have resigned. But it was very rude of your opponent to say, " you are wasting my time." 

I am feeling guilty about my last post because I am in a game now where I am sure my opponent thinks I should resign! (I will, Vince, soon!)

chess is for losers 

Sorry to necro this thread, but after his comment "Just resign You're wasting my time."I  would have played as slowly as possible and made him mate me.

You get the idea that this post was 11 years ago, and the OP was active 4 years ago?