11268 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!
I usually resign when I don't see any chance for counterplay,no hope for a win or a draw;but you have to remember your opponent may want to see how a better player wins the position. The only thing I don"t like is when my opponent is lost and stops moving,then you have to wait a month to clear the game,but if they're still actively playing,you should go to checkmate with good cheer
The answer to this is different depending on how strong a player you are and what level your opponent is at. Generally, the lower level the game the slower you should be to resign. Something that would be decisive in a master's game might be frittered away by a poor player like me. In low level play dramatic reversals can sometimes happen, as do outright tactical errors. Even if badly behind make the position as sharp and complicated as possible, create threats in multiple parts of the board, and once in a while the other guy will screw up and let you steal it. Not that often, but always fight it out. I generally don't resign until I can see a forced win, either a forced mate or a pawn promotion I can't stop, etc.
I will admit, that if it is early in the game and I have made an outright tactical blunder (dropped a rook with no compensation, or something equally stupid) I will usually just call a Mulligan, resign, and ask if they want another game.
general CC ettiquite at the higher levels (1800+ i'd say) usually means resigning if you hang a piece accidentally.
Either way though, resign once you know your game is lost.
edit - there are two 'exceptions' in my books..
1- Don't stall and hope for a time out, don't stall at all for that matter.
2- If the game is drawn and your opponent offers, accept it.. playing on is frustrating, time wasting, and unfair (being as in real life a tournament director would force the draw).
I'm not sure about the 2nd one. A long while back I played out a game where we each had a rook left. He declined a draw several times and we had about another 50/60 moves and then I clumsily let him win my rook.
You could say it was desperate and perhaps he was lacking in sportsmanship, bascially outlasting me but he won so I couldn't really complain. Time also wasn't an issue.
You can claim a draw once 50 moves have passed without a piece being captured and no pawn moves, whether your opponent likes it or not.
in CC I'll usually resign if a piece down against equal opposition.in live I'll play it out a bit longer until the position is completely hopeless,you never know when your opponent might f*** up a won position.
here's a game where I came back from the dead:
In my experience playing many live blitz games, one should never resign. A good 30% of my games I win because of either of a comback (which even surprises me), opponent runs out of time, or opponent blunders. Even in a very hopeless position I find it useful to try and play it out to a draw until mate.
obviously not always I won in this position which was published in our local chess magazine which is read by 2000 chess players EDIT: maybe only 400.to always to pay attention even if you think you are winning my opponent is rated around 1800 and I am rated 1435. it was 2 hours otb gameI am black and you may say I am clearly losing and many would say I should simply resign.
... snip ...I am black and you may say I am clearly losing and many would say I should simply resign.
bobbyDK ,that is a position with tactics available. Whenever there are tactics or counterplay that makes sense in a position then no player in his right mind would suggest that you resign, I would say. It would be the wrong moment. Play out the tactics and if no success then you can resign.
I think that the terms "should" and "never" don't apply. If in a 3 minutes blitz game I blunder the queen in the opening, then there can be to scenarios: 1) It is a queen loss with no compensation neither in position nor in material or any other way. 2) It is a queen loss in a complicated position with lots of tactics.
Let us say that in those two cases both players have 2½ minutes left, that would be another 5 minutes game play. In scenario number 1 it would mean 5 minutes of utter boredom because of absolutely no compensation. Resigning would be more exciting and thus preferable. In scenario number 2, it would mean that an exciting game is still going on, so continuing would be preferable. Well, it always depends on the position.
When do you agree to draw?
Recently I had a opposite colored bishop ending with about 5 pawns on each side, which I considered dead drawn (and I even thought I had a slight positional disadvantage). I offered a draw, but my opponent declined, and instead pressed hard for a win.
He resigned about 20 moves later.
But maybe he was right not to accept the draw...maybe he learned a little about what not to do in drawn bishop endgames.
Resigners are losers
White misplayed this position: if he plays Qxg5+, then you might consider resigning.
mostly, i resign if i know that i'm in forced checkmate in a couple of moves....
sometimes i analyze the position first, when i see and realize that my position is really bad.... i will resign..
sometimes if i'm down with a piece i'm forced to resign....
I only resign when I have better things to do than to look for a draw. Otherwise, what's to lose by playing on? Heck, I won an OTB game where I dropped a rook, since my opponent was making sissy defensive moves that allowed me to pull off a mating net.
To put it simply, a player should resign when they feel that there is nothing left to be proven by their opponent. What I mean by this is that there is no technique left to be shown, no traps to be avoided, and no purpose in continuing the game. In other words, the appropriate time to resign is when your opponent has clearly proven the win beyond any doubt.
The last three words are bolded above because in cases such as bullet chess or low level play the win is almost always in doubt no matter what the position, rendering the above invalid.
You should resign when your opponent castles, at least if your game is going like this one. I was playing white v a 2000 uscf rated player.
And that is why you learn extremely theoretical slav lines before you try and play them
And also not to push pawns in front of your king (as in 11. h5). If white could have had that pawn move back and simply held the bishop back on g3 as extra protection, white would have been better. The correct plan is to break down the queenside once everything is developed with pawn breaks like b3.
h4 is good, but h5 is the wrong idea. I wanted to weaken the g pawn by not allowing him to play h5, but he was going to sac it anyways. Bh4 was even worse.
As for b3, I sadly tried that against the botvinnik and was crushed. I have learned those lines now so that it doesn't happen again, but I need to learn these as well
You Should Be Forced to Resign
by netzach a few minutes ago
Will technology ruin the game of chess?
by Ubik42 3 minutes ago
why do people stall when they are losing?
by OldChessDog 5 minutes ago
Chicago Open 2013
by talhah 5 minutes ago
Solve this Riddle if you can
by Cogwheel 7 minutes ago
3 reasons Why "Online Chess" ratings deserves no repsect
by Ubik42 10 minutes ago
5/18/2013 - Mate in 4
by briansladovich 10 minutes ago
black defences against scotch and ruy
by time2think124 12 minutes ago
by waffllemaster 13 minutes ago
Do you write out your thoughts in online chess?
by ucanthandlethetruth 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com