Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why do Grandmasters resign?


  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #41

    varelse1

    Because they know enough about chess, to know when a position is untenable.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #42

    computo200

    bobbyDK wrote:
    Reb skrev:

    Strong players that refuse to resign in hopeless positions are mocked mercilessly , and rightfully so imo .  Strong players know when they should resign and they do .  

    what about those that resign in winning positions cause they think they are losing aren't they mocked mercilessly too? - or even resigning positions that he could draw like Kasparov that resigned against deep blue when he had a draw.

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1161227

    He didn't have a draw. He could just keep fighting in a worse ending, but he missed the variation and there were too many option to choose from. Don't change people word's, noone ever said that the position was ''drawn''.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #43

    bobbyDK

    computo200 skrev:
    bobbyDK wrote:
    Reb skrev:

    Strong players that refuse to resign in hopeless positions are mocked mercilessly , and rightfully so imo .  Strong players know when they should resign and they do .  

    what about those that resign in winning positions cause they think they are losing aren't they mocked mercilessly too? - or even resigning positions that he could draw like Kasparov that resigned against deep blue when he had a draw.

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1161227

    He didn't have a draw. He could just keep fighting in a worse ending, but he missed the variation and there were too many option to choose from. Don't change people word's, noone ever said that the position was ''drawn''.

    I am not sure what words I have changed .

    http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/resigntxt.htm

    I read this . "Kasparov made both blunders within a few months in 1997, first resigning a game against Deep Blue that he could have drawn"

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #44

    tthechesstitan

    cleocamy wrote:

    I don't think that I have ever seen many GM games that end in checkmate. Actually only one comes to mind... Fischer v Byrne. Why is that?

    Some GMs literally hate each other. Much is also said about the phychological factor. Wouldn't that be a perfect opportunity to vex your opponent with trash talk? "I demand that you checkmate me buttsuck. You are so stupid that you will probably blunder and I will trounce you fool. Why are you even bothering to play me retardo?"

    I have heard of situations where there is very bad blood between the players and one won't show to shake hands but  instead he resigns by messenger. But he does resign. Why not just play on and tell the other guy what garbage he is?

    Good point, but unfortunately talking trash is against chess rules :)

    Some players, like Short, play until mate in some cases

    http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #45

    tthechesstitan

    varelse1 wrote:

    Because they know enough about chess, to know when a position is untenable.

    Yes true, although I think that a GM playing against an untitled players would normally play more moves in a lost position

    http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #46

    mlchessml

    What about Popil vs Marco 1902? Black resigned in a completely winning position because he taught he was losing?

    Or Flohr vs Henri  1933? Flohr resigned but he could save the game?

    I am sure there are more examples.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #47

    ponz111

    mlchessml wrote:

    What about Popil vs Marco 1902? Black resigned in a completely winning position because he taught he was losing?

    Or Flohr vs Henri  1933? Flohr resigned but he could save the game?

    I am sure there are more examples.

    One can always find  rare examples but the reasons gms resign remain the same.

    One additional reason, not mentioned, that I experienced, is reaching the time control.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #48

    Mottley

    many times I have an opponent reduced to moving his king back and forward on just 2 squares whilst my pawn queens and then puts us both out his misery! thats what I call hopeless and should resign much sooner

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #49

    Prudentia

    ponz111 a écrit :
    mlchessml wrote:

    What about Popil vs Marco 1902? Black resigned in a completely winning position because he taught he was losing?

    Or Flohr vs Henri  1933? Flohr resigned but he could save the game?

    I am sure there are more examples.

    One can always find  rare examples but the reasons gms resign remain the same.

    One additional reason, not mentioned, that I experienced, is reaching the time control.

    If I recall correctly, one of those games could have been won, or saved based on an outrageous combination that is quite difficult to find while on the clock.

  • 2 weeks ago · Quote · #50

    AstroSrimadeva

    Probably the main reason is to respect their opponents and to save themselves embarassment of checkmate. But at high level, it's simply a waste of time to let the game go on when you absolutely have no hope of winning or even drawing.

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #51

    Vladimir_Ikhonov

    cleocamy wrote:

    I don't think that I have ever seen many GM games that end in checkmate. Actually only one comes to mind... Fischer v Byrne. Why is that?

    Some GMs literally hate each other. Much is also said about the phychological factor. Wouldn't that be a perfect opportunity to vex your opponent with trash talk? "I demand that you checkmate me buttsuck. You are so stupid that you will probably blunder and I will trounce you fool. Why are you even bothering to play me retardo?"

    I have heard of situations where there is very bad blood between the players and one won't show to shake hands but  instead he resigns by messenger. But he does resign. Why not just play on and tell the other guy what garbage he is?

    O.P.: By the way, durning the game of the century Fischer vs. Byrne, neither one of them were GMs. In fact, Byrne never became a GM.

  • 6 hours ago · Quote · #52

    Mainline_Novelty

    mlchessml wrote:

    What about Popil vs Marco 1902? Black resigned in a completely winning position because he taught he was losing?

    The point is that Marco resigned because he believed he was losing. The only way that Black could've been not losing (and in fact winning) was if he had noticed ...Bg1. He obviously did not, and playing on with some move other than ...Bg1 wouldn't have done him much more good than resigning right away.

  • 5 hours ago · Quote · #53

    Snookslayer

    At the very least, one can hope for a stalemate or an opponent blunder. I would never be upset by a player who won't resign. Then again I'm not a GM.

    I'm actually surprised the opposite isn't true and that it's bad to taste to resign prior to the game's conclusion, no matter how lost the position. I wish that was the case, because I want to see GM's get checkmated.


Back to Top

Post your reply: