If I'm going down and there is no logically concievable hope for a win or draw without your opponent making a blunder then I will resign.
Why waste both your time and your opponents?
It just makes you look stupid win he wipes the floor with you.
Showing people to resign in a hopeless game
Sort:
I don't resign always a chance to win by stalemate, by time or one stupid move
“No one ever won a game by resigning”
(Saviely Tartakower)
Aug 7, 2008
0
#4
Maybe it is interesting to see how your opponent finishes the game and as a beginner I can learn something from it. That is the reason why I don't resign most of my games. Further on is this subject a never ending story where every month someone feels it his duty to open a topic about it... I'll repeat my point of view: everyone has to decide for him/her self when to resign, there is no reason why another should decide when you have to resign or call you an idiot for not doing like he does. Since when do we have to jump into an abyss because another "better" player "would do it when he was in your place".
That is a little silly problem, because if the situation is so hopless, then it shouldnt be a problem for an opponent to checkmate you..and about waisting time, well, if its not waste of time to the both sides, the game is still interesting and should go on..
Chess, by its very nature, is combative. Chess is war! One cannot dictate when another should raise the white flag - or even if the white flag should be raised at all.
Each game is unique unto itself - as is the situation surrounding each game. I've been involved in games in which being down even one pawn to a superior opponent would seem to call for my resignation. On the other side of the coin are those games in which I've been down in material by six, seven, eight or more points and still managed to pull out a draw or even a win.
Material superiority, a favorable positon, and your opponent's propensity for aggression (or lack therof) are all factors which must be considered. If indeed your situation is hopeless, then to pointlessly scamper about the board while forcing your opponent to continue to spend valuable time proving a point can be considered rude. Let common sense rule!
What if he runs ot of time
i depends on how u view the subject really. some people would wait to see if their opponent makes a blunder while others would resign straight away.
I'm with you hawkinspal. If you wait you might win on time.
Besides you'll lose the same amount of rating points
thankyou pineapplebrainDerek
Personally, I don't always resign. My oppinion is, that one shall only resign if it really IS hopeless; e.g. if there is like 15 minutes left on both clocks, and you have a stance on the board where there is no hope for a win or draw, then you should resign instead of wasting time.
But if there is a bit of hope, I think it is okay not to resign and persue that hope :)
ya welcome
ya welcome
Aug 7, 2008
0
#15
Does anybody remember a TV series called "The Prisoner"? Every week, he was interrogated using the same question: WHY DID YOU RESIGN?
|
why RESIGN |
why CONTINUE PLAYING |
|
because it is disrespectful to your opponent to prolong a game |
because it is disrespectful to your opponent not to complete the game |
|
nothing of importance to be learned (just how to do endings) |
something of importance to be learned (how to do endings) |
|
the essence of chess is to learn from your mistakes |
the essence of chess is to maximise your points |
|
no honour in relying in opponent’s blunder for a stalemate |
great satisfaction in a stalemate as a result of opponent’s blunder |
|
the guidance says you should do it |
the rules don’t say you have to |
|
top players usually do it |
top players don’t always do it |
|
we are like top players |
we are not like top players |
|
accept the inevitable |
never give up; never say die; “I’m not a quitter” |
|
a waste of time |
not a waste of time |
|
In tournaments, I have a responsibility not to prolong the tournament for everyone |
In tournaments, I have a right to play as long as I want |
|
outcome can be clearly seen and understood |
outcome can not be clearly seen and understood |
|
outcome is almost 100% certain |
outcome is not 100% certain |
|
My opponent has demonstrated that he probably has the ability to achieve checkmate |
My opponent has not proved that he has the ability to achieve checkmate |
|
I don’t want to be childish |
I want to be childish (‘punish’/annoy my opponent) |
|
it’s the right thing to do |
it’s the right thing to do |
To his credit, The Prisoner always refused to answer the question.
Sometimes I just get tired of a game and resign, otherwise I make my the other guy earn the win.
I'm curious how many people fall into the two "always" categories: always resign and always play on. I find myself sometimes resigning -- occassionally very early -- and sometimes playing on long after the outcome is inevitable. A lot of different factors go into my decision. For me, every game is different and I make my decision based on how I'm feeling about that game at that moment.
"It is generally considered proper chess etiquette to resign clearly lost positions. The proper time to resign should vary with one’s chess ability. Most beginners should probably play on until they are checkmated. But more advanced players should resign clearly lost positions when they are certain that if they were on the other side of the position, they could beat even a master." (link for the above is: http://www.ksca.us/FAQ/Quick_Guide.pdf" Bottom line - if you're a beginner, you can learn a lot by getting yoruself mated. But there comes a time in your chess study when you should know better.
Aug 8, 2008
0
#20
Top stars remake 'Prisoner' at Swakop - by ADAM HARTMAN
29-7-08 ACTORS Jim Caviezel and Ian McKellen will be in Swakopmund shortly to star in the six-part ITV reinvention of the 1960s cult thriller 'The Prisoner'. The television series is about a man who finds himself trapped in a mysterious place called 'The Chess.com Village', with no memory of how he arrived there. The "prisoner" explores his environment, and finds out that the inhabitants are identified by numbers (or ratings) instead of names, and also have no memory of a prior existence or outside civilisation. 'Number Six' (Caviezel) is driven by a desperate need to discover the truth behind The Village, the reason for his being there, and most importantly, how he can survive and escape. The Village is controlled by "the sinister and charismatic" 'Number Two' (Erik). In each new episode Six and Two are locked in a battle of wits, as Six challenges the oppressive nature of The Village and battles against his captors. Six must find out what The Village is, but in doing so, he must also confront some dark truths about himself. A controversial update to the storyline has been the decision to change a key theme from: 'Why did you resign?' to 'Why didn't you resign?'. Set-production teams are already busy with several stages around Swakopmund - particularly the Mole area and the town's centre. The shooting of the series is set to start in August, and certain parts of town will be closed for short intervals. Sapieka said the closure of certain areas would be announced in advance. 'The Prisoner', created by Patrick McGoohan in 1967, is regarded as one of the most intriguing TV series ever created. While the original series was a riff on Cold War politics, ITV's remake will reflect 21st century concerns and anxieties such as liberty, security, surveillance and chess, yet also showcase the same key elements of paranoia, tense action and socio-political commentary seen in McGoohan's enigmatic original.
There are some people who just don't resign in a hopeless position like me. My coach called me an idiot when I didn't resign. Dont resign because you might win on time!