What do you do if you Blunder a Knight or Bishop during the Opening Phase (e.g. before move 12)? Do you: (1)Resign immediately against a player rated X-points higher than you, (2) play on against one rated X-points lower than you, (3) Resign regardless of rating and devote your time to playing a more equal game, or (4) play on regardless of rating with the idea that even great players can make a Blunder or play a poor Endgame and even things up?

I used to resign against a stronger (or equal) player if I lost a piece; however, now I'm a lot slower to resign in this sort of situation. I managed to win a game against a player of equal strength after being down two (!) minor pieces in the first 15ish moves. One should not give up in a situation like this; I managed to win back a minor piece and then got outside connected passed pawns that eventually forced through a queen. Tactics can prevail.

What I do is I go out to an abandoned motel on the outskirts of the mojave desert with a pawnshop revolver, a bottle of tequila, and a three-legged dog rescued from the nearest shelter. I lay naked in the empty swimming pool and drink myself into unconsciousness while the sun bakes my skin until it peels and the dog paces miserably and licks my palm. I wake up suddenly in the blackest hour of the night and just start screaming and shooting at the stars -- it ends with me laughing/crying/dancing while my little battery powered transistor radio plays "Hickory Wind" as the sun comes up... and I'm ready to play chess again. 

I play on no matter what.  If against a much stronger player, then I should be pushed into a clearly insurmountable disadavantage and then I will resign.  If they are too lazy and/or trade-off too easily (egos can lose advantages) I may be able to find a tactical shot and win an exchange.   Down a piece against a much stronger player should just make you look harder at finding a combination that wins an exchange and/or damages their position.

Against an equal player, they must maintain or build their advantage well into the middle game or even end game.  Maybe 35% - 40% chance of my finding an pawn or other advantage here and there.

Against a lesser player, I expect to be enough better to overcome the blunder.

There are a million answers to this question ... OK, not a million, but many. In the case actually mentioned - losing a minor piece early with little or no compensation - this difference is considered a winning difference by most authorities. One could say that one is 'lost' in such situations. But this measuring stick is a) the one used in the case of strong players with strong technical skills, and b) no evaluation of the importance of the game.

If either a) or b) contain important information (e.g., game between rank amateurs where a piece up may mean little or nothing; or a game in which a lot is riding relative to the investment of time and courtesy, such as the last game in a tournament and the difference between a win and draw is significant), then playing on may be very much justified.

If it's a blitz game on chess.com and your opponent is 400 points in rating higher than you, it might be more courteous to consider resigning ... however, I might ask my opponent if he/she minded if we continued playing so that I could see how a person 'wins a won game.'

Just some ideas.

Maybe search a chess forum for the answer: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-to-do-if-you-bungled-the-opening-game

I always play on.  One piece may kill you, but it'll help your tactics and board sight to play on and try to find a way to overcome it.  There's enough people on here that if you upset someone, you won't have to worry about never playing them again.

Resign at once.

Resign.

resign.

p.s. "bungled"?

Thanks for all the comments as to approaches you guys take.

xMenace, the referenced forum article you site asked about making 2 or more Blunders and that answer I considered obvious. My question is what do you do if you just Blunder I piece?

I'll play on a couple more moves usually, but the games don't last that long because  after I blunder in the beginning I have no desire to keep trying. So I make moves without thinking alot, a few times I've been able to make up the blunder by making it equal, but most of the time my opponent beats me.

I'll play on a couple more moves usually, but the games don't last that long because  after I blunder in the beginning I have no desire to keep trying. So I make moves without thinking alot.....

If one is going to quit, they should resign.  Quiting is worse than resigning.  No harm (except in high level play) in strengthening resolve and at least trying.

At what level is a Knight or Bishop blundered in the opening decisive?  1700+, 1800+?  As low as 1600?

In my 'tournament career' (kinda minimal :P) I've hung 1 piece... and it was in the opening... and I played on... and I won :P.

However, were the situation to occur again I would resign... it felt weird playing on.

I never resign in this situation and here's why!  This is a game in which I blundered not just a bishop or knight, but a ROOK against a player rated 400 points higher.  And I earned my way back into this game with an aggressive assault before he could develop his piece advantage.

This game isn't over yet.  It's on move 40 but I cut it off here at move 25 to avoid any temptations or accusations of mis-using feedback on this post to help my game.  I could still lose this game; this player is very good.  But I think this makes the case that you don't have to give up, and you don't have to wait for a blunder - you can still take control.

Part of what worked here, was that he took an undeveloped piece.  So even though he was then at a piece advantage, our development was still relatively even so I got aggressive before he could develop his advantage.  This wouldn't work as well if you'd blundered one of your developed bishops or knights.

 Hmmmmm....

bvangunten, that's a great example to post.  If you can't come up with a solution to a dilemma, then you should probably resign... but since there are so many possibilities and configurations in chess, one shouldn't be TOO quick to give up.  I resign when my position is poor, but not necessarily when my piece count is lower than my opponent's.

Thanks to everyone for all the replies; I'm somewhat amused by all the different approaches that people use. I wonder if one's approach to a single blunder tells something psychologically about a player and if it carries over to "real life"? 

For instance, if someone resigns quickly, do they also give up easily when confronting a setback or rejection when trying something new in life?

Well, that ought to open up a box of worms.  One might just as easily characterize the converse as someone who is willing to fight about something hopeless far past the point of reason, like trying to appeal a $10 parking ticket to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The real answer depends on your rating.  If your opponent is under 1500 or so, a piece is not necessarily a winning advantage, there's plenty of opportunity and likelihood that they'll blunder that away.  If your opponent is rated 2300, a full-piece deficit with no compensation is easily winning, and to continue is just wasting your time and theirs.

That all said, I do think there is something to be said about people's reaction to adversity in chess, and the same in life.  Digging in and fighting tooth and nail when you have a bad position is unpleasant, but you WILL scrape out some draws and wins that you would not have had by giving up -- and it builds character too.

I guess that all depends on how much one's chess rating matters to oneself...