The analogy with a sport like tennis is flawed. In each point of a tennis match I can play up to my full ability no matter how many points I have lost previously. But this is not so in chess. When we are significantly behind in material in chess it's like playing tennis with no racket. If you played a tennis match where a 5-0 lead in a set meant you play the next game with no racket, surely you'd resign that set.
Precisely.
lithium11: chess is only similar if you are hoping that your opponent has an aneurism or something. There is luck in some other games/sports that just isn't there in chess - this is why people often resign. A better analogy is a race, where it's you against the other guy - and he is 1 foot from the finish line. You are about 100m back. In that case, you only win if he has a heart attack or something.
Even then, if the other guy falls forward over the finish line before you get there..........
Hear is one of the games, I played against a high rated player. I was down by 3 pawns, but yet to manage a draw. I fought till da end. some time too many materials of opponent gives u good advantage. Pls see his comments also. He has done a good analysis of our game...
In regard to raghu's game--Black either is a horrible endgame player or just played without thinking assuming it was a won game. Why he delayed ...e2 is beyond me.
Painful to watch Black botch that ending. He had a won game and stopped thinking.
Not a problem for me. I don't see the end game as well which is what I am working on. So I play till I am checkmated.
I play until the last move if I feel like it, sometimes though if it's a clear win for my opponent I won't bother.
There is no better way to ultimately bury the resignation dilemma than this, nuff said.
I play the first move, and after that whether I resign or not depends on how the game goes.
Yeah, "mind-bogglingly cheap" is more like it.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.