10830 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Lone king vs 10 pieces?
this sounds like the old chestnut about resigning...never play on with maor material disadvantage
Thanks for everyone's comments so far. To clarify, this isn't about online games, but casual games in a coffee shop.
If it's a coffee-shop in Amsterdam, I could tolerate a pretty imballanced position on the board, as long as I'm not out of cake.
Mmm, cake! Hopefully the coffeeshops in Seattle will have the tasty Dutch varieties soon.
There is no rule or convention requiring resignation at any point. In the 19th Century, to resign when the opponent had a forced mate was considered unsporting.
An abiding and very true chess maxim is that it is very hard to win a "won" game! If it is so "won," it should not be any problem to just win it and stop complaining the opponent hasn't resigned.
You should resign if you are down by 5 or more points in material for 2 moves.
My OTB strength is about 1500. I would not expect to win/draw a game if I blunder a piece away. I think it would only be fair to my opponent that I resign; to play on would be wishful if not insulting.
Everybody has to respect their own perception of etiquette, but I disagree with this statement completely, particularly at the 1500 level. Games at that level are mostly won on blunders. It is not disrespectful to play on at all. In fact as a player around that strength, I would rather my opponent make me play until there is no chance of blundering away the advantage. If I blunder away my Queen, I would usually resign. But if it was later in the game, my pawns were all locked up, my pieces all gone and my king boxed in. I would feel entitled to play for stalemate and I would want an opponent to do so. If you are playing against a much higher rated opponent, perhaps it is different. But at the intermediate level, make him earn it.
LOL...I have been down materially in many games, and came back to win. There is no rule forcing anyone to resign at anytime...if he is so lost, then prove it and stop complaining. There is so many opponents here to play, I am just amazed that one even considers this little matter.
If you are down to your King vs oh let's say...4 pawns, 1 queened pawn, a bishop and King...should you fight on?
I had a game here recently (Standard) where I fell into an opening trap and lost TWO pieces. But I played on, generating mate threats on f2 and c2 -sacking a few pawns along the way. He stopped the threats, threatened to win another piece, so I resigned. But I feel fully justified in playing on after the initial blunder(s).
In the next game . I got (1) an overwhelming POSITIONAL advantage -- control of open d and e files against an exposed King; (2) an overwhelming MATERIAL advantage -- Queen for Knight. Should I grouse that my opponent did not resign? Is the moon made of green cheese?
I'm sure you have guessed, Gentle Reader, that this does not end well. You would be correct. . . I promptly fell into a back rank mate!
Not a good day, fer sure. And embarrassing to report. But I'll certainly play on in 'lost' positions until opponents demonstrate they can win them; and I certainly won't complain if opponents do the same.
If you are down to your king vs 4 pawns, a queened pawn, a bishop and a king...will you grit your teeth and fight bravely on?
Generally I won't feel it is worth the time. But not everyone may necessarily feel the same. If I am on the stronger side and my opponent wants that confirmation that I will not hallucinate, so be it.
I like to go for that one last attack. When I see that that is going to fail too I resign.
I like to push my last piece...my King around...against unbackable odds...against 7 or even 10 enemy pieces. Fight to the death. Maybe I can win.
"significant material disadvantage" what do you mean by that?
In chess material disadvantage is nothing but an illusion. All that matters is positional advantages or disadvantages. I saw many high level players accept "significant material disadvantage" in order to gain significant positional advantage. But of course, in a game like Bishop vs queen end game, dragging the game would be pointless.
Why is the most powerful, versatile and indispensable chess piece a woman?
by btickler a few minutes ago
I love it!
by Poisson_Rouge a few minutes ago
by Boogalicious 4 minutes ago
12/18/2014 - Mate in 4
by mohamadhadad1980 5 minutes ago
TCEC Season 7
by gambit-man 6 minutes ago
12/17/2014 - Lose To Gain
by LaGr77 6 minutes ago
Places where it would be rude to bring your chess set?
by Boogalicious 12 minutes ago
How can I get RonaldJosephCote back?
by macer75 12 minutes ago
Do high testosterone levels improve performance?
by Ellie47 13 minutes ago
12/16/2014 - Mate in 2
by LaGr77 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!