Do YOU know when to resign?
Sort:
I think I need to resign about now....
never resign you dnt now wen ure opponent might muk up
There has to come a stage where it is just delaying the inevitable not to resing. If I am losing to someone and after taking into account their grading feel there is really next to no chance they will mess up to throw the game back to me I will resign.
Short answer: When the game is lost
On that one game, I probably would have resigned at about move 47 in OTB play. With two passed pawns white is either going to promote or take his king on a romp through black's queenside and white is clearly good enough to make good on the situation.
In my experience, people who have real tournament experience tend to resign when the game is lost. People who do not tend to stick it out in hopes that the opponent will do something silly like hanging a queen.
Here, when I was asked by my opponent if he should resign, I have indicated to my oponents that if he could still learn he should feel free to play on.
That said, I will not just resign if I hang a piece. There is no automatic cue to resign. When the position is lost, there is no reason to play it out.
I believe that resignation has become a regular part of the game to spare players from having to play out a disheartening lost game or forcing them to purposely play bad moves in order to bring about a quick end. In this light it becomes an entirely personal decision- if you don't mind playing on in lost positions then why not. I often hear the question of when to resign discussed like it's some sort of etiquitte issue- like there's some point beyond which it's just wrong to play on. To me this seems equivalent to saying that it's demanding too much of an opponent who has achieved a sizable advantage over you to require them to actually beat you. In my experience it also leads to unwarranted resentment when an opponent doesn't resign in a position where we feel we would. When I occasionally hear players complain about an opponent who won't resign I think their real fear is the possiblility of being embarrassed by blowing the advantage. Titled players who know how to win a won game often consider it a courtesy if their opponent allows them to play out checkmate. Whether we're going to get anything out of playing on in a bad position depends on what we get out of playing in the first place and that's different for all of us. It doesn't really make sense then to ask if somebody knows when to resign because ultimately there's really nothing to know.
Loomis wrote: I would rather resign one move too late than one move too early.
Good answer.
I tend to agree with skorj. When you agree to play a game of chess, you're agreeing to play it out until it's over. Complaining that your opponent forced you to actually do so is a bit silly. There's nothing that says you have to resign when the game is lost.
My personal standard is whether or not I can learn something by continuing to play. If I'm dead lost, I know that my opponent is good enough to force the win, and I know how my opponent is going to force the win, then it's time to resign. But if I'm not sure how my opponent will beat me, it's worth playing out just to learn from the technique.
Or if there's still a reasonable chance that my opponent might blow it, then I certainly want to keep playing and give him every reasonable opportunity to blunder. The key word there is reasonable. I don't expect my opponents to blatantly hang a piece, but I might try to trade all the pawns so my opponent's extra piece isn't enough to win, and some decent opponents will occasionally let me get away with that.
--Fromper
I dont know a single titled player who considers it a "courtesy" when some bozo plays until mate. To suggest this is so is just nonsense. In the game of mine that I mentioned I was a bit upset that my opponent didnt resign at move 50 where I am clearly winning and even a GM couldnt save this position against me. With a 2 pawn advantage (both passed) and no compensation for them the position is simply lost, and to think a titled player might "blow it" is akin to hoping maybe lightning will strike the guy and he will time out before he can actually bring about mate. I wish chess had something similar to the doubling cube in backgammon where I could "double" in such a game and if the opponent insists on continuing play then he loses twice the points that he would if he just resigned. 
Actually doubling in chess is a common thing, as far as I know, when people gamble on the game...
The theme about the decision to resign is very relative.I believe everything depends from the position.You can win a rook but at some moves unavoidably you lose the game..so you resign!But there is something else.I was at a difficult position from a strong opponent and when i was thinking to resign he lost on time!!You just never know..
Once, a player suggested I resign, they being higher ranked and was up a couple points and I felt all was not lost....I ended up winning on time....funny thing.
you should resign if u are in a losing position, i have played a game where i was a rook and a pawn up in the endgame and my opponent refused to resign and just waited til his time was 1 hour from expiring on each move.... very very annoying.....i think my opponent was hoping for me to time out...
Gert-Jan> I woudl have resigned exactly where your opponent did it. Before that there was no reason to resign because the game was really lost when he could not promovate a pawn. before that it was draw.
The right point to resign depends on the players' ratings.
At the USCF 700 level, there's nothing wrong with that. Your opponent may not be able to convert, and by continuing you may walk away with a draw!
Chess_Pro is chess.com 2164, which means he knew the game was hopeless against a titled opponent after either 49.Bd6 or 57.Kf7. It's good sportsmanship to resign when you know you have no chance of winning or drawing.
Yeah, I was in the same simul as Am3692, and I also resigned when the position was just too hopeless. Down a rook, no mobility for my remaining knight - my king was exposed - I think it was a forced mate in 6 too.
I agree with skorj
Entirely up to the individual to decide if and when to resign. Every player thinks differently in every situation. One man's/woman's resignation is another one's continuance regardless of 'etiquette'.
Reb wrote: I dont know a single titled player who considers it a "courtesy" when some bozo plays until mate.
I suppose this illustrates one of my points better than anything I could have come up with. It's only when when we get the notion that an opponent is obliged to share our notion of when to resign that someone who's done nothing more than play the game that both agreed to play becomes "some bozo".
Reb wrote: I dont know a single titled player who considers it a "courtesy" when some bozo plays until mate. To suggest this is so is just nonsense. In the game of mine that I mentioned I was a bit upset that my opponent didnt resign at move 50 where I am clearly winning and even a GM couldnt save this position against me. With a 2 pawn advantage (both passed) and no compensation for them the position is simply lost, and to think a titled player might "blow it" is akin to hoping maybe lightning will strike the guy and he will time out before he can actually bring about mate. I wish chess had something similar to the doubling cube in backgammon where I could "double" in such a game and if the opponent insists on continuing play then he loses twice the points that he would if he just resigned.
I haven't looked over your game, but as I said above, I consider it a good idea for improving players to continue to play even in a dead lost position, if they can learn from it. If I don't know the technique you'll use to finish me off, I'll play it out to learn from you.
It's like when I played a simul against a GM - I knew I was lost before the first move, but I wanted to play the game for the experience. And again, I didn't resign until we reached a position where I felt I could win if we turned the board around and had me playing the winning position against the GM. Prior to that, I knew I was losing for a while, but I kept playing to learn from the GM's technique of driving home the win.
--Fromper
skorj wrote: Reb wrote: I dont know a single titled player who considers it a "courtesy" when some bozo plays until mate.
I suppose this illustrates one of my points better than anything I could have come up with. It's only when when we get the notion that an opponent is obliged to share our notion of when to resign that someone who's done nothing more than play the game that both agreed to play becomes "some bozo".
How many games in Corus were played until mate? In open events that I play I never see anyone make a titlked player play until mate, when they see their position is hopeless and its just a matter of time they resign. Perhaps among beginners its common to play until mate but I have had even unrated players resign against me when clearly lost. Its pretty obvious to me who the serious players are here and who the bozos are . If the shoe fits......wear it.
Reb wrote: Let's see how many know when to resign. Check my most recently completed game and tell me on which move # do you think my opponent should have resigned? After some responses I will tell you when I think he should have resigned.
I would have played the hondoham countermaster defense.
1.e4, "Abort Game" 
Don't get the idea I'm advocating playing on no matter how bad thing get- I'll resign a lost position as fast as the next guy. And of course games between titled players almost never go to mate (most of those I know of that do come as the result of a spectacular combination that the losing side allows to be played out as a courtesy). Even the oponents I play, usually 1000+ Elo below the Group A players at Wijk, rarely insist on playing a hopeless position. The occasions where they do are hardly worth getting upset over. If I really have them mating isn't really a bother anyway. Yeah, there's bozos out there, but not everybody who doesn't resign when I think they should is one. (I'll grant you though, some are.)