I'm new to this site but already I've real;ised that the topic of when to resign is contentious. Please have a look at a recent game of mine in which I play black against an opponent I'd not played before. This is the posiion at which my opponent resigned. Although I am about to gain some material I was very surprised when my opponent resigned at this point.

I'm interested in how many other members would have resigned. I wouldn't have.

It is definately resignable if from the perspective of a high-level game (higher than mine... much, much higher...) as the best white can get away with is being a bishop and two pawns down. Enough to resign, IMO.

i think here is no need to resign. still have the chances for white. i think your opponent lose his confident on game that's why he/she resigned.

---

There aren't large chances when you're 5 points down on material!

Neither myself or my opponent have very high ratings - mine is in 1700s and his was 1600s.

This position is resignable for White from about 1500 and up. If an opponent of your strength (1735) did not resign I would assume he was taking the mickey. I would proceed to promote all my pawns to knights and play it with a straight face. Usually at this point they type "Why didn't you promote to a Queen? are you mocking me?".... I reply "Why didn't you resign yet? are you mocking me?" This somewhat childish and spiteful approach, ensures a speedy resignation in any further games with said opponent.

I don't think back's position is very well developed and is a long way off promoting a pawn - once that becomes evident, then resign.

so the resignation is correct?

I have both won and lost games from being a piece up or down.

---

It's all about context, isn't it? Piece down against my Mum... No problem! Piece down against Kasparov.... I'm wasting the man's time. Chess players learn, through experience, where to draw the line.

That's fair comment but my opponent had only seen me make 13 moves.

---

Not quite, he had also seen your rating and in my opinion drew the line in the correct place. Well played, chalk up another win.

I'm beginning to come round to your argument, but players of my standard do make mistakes and personally I would not give up quite so quickly.

---

I like how you hint that if you were playing chess against your mum you'd not take it easy, instead  you'd give it both guns!

---

I've never lost to my Mum, although she has refused to play me for over 30 years. My Dad did win a couple of games when I was about nine (he used to play at work in his lunch time), however after a couple of sound thrashings from a ten year old gave the game up completely. I used to play my ex-missus blindfold, until she quit as well. Can't get the staff can you?

Ray

My chess playing is a dirty secret. I only dabble about with it in the virtual world :)

Na, I've tried to get folk to play but they all burn out regardless of how much enthusiasm I try to put into it. So no OTB for me.

It's a pity your Mum didn't beat you then refuse to play for 30 years - would have made her a bit Bobby Fischer-ish (yes, that's a word).

Isn't the black Queen undefended??

---

The White King is in check.

---

 Yes, but white is in check !

The subject of resigning is not contentious, things are very clear. If a position does not appear losing to you, than do not resign! After all, nobody expects a beginner (<1000 ELO) to be able to mate with two bishops. The problem is when high rated players continue moving in clearly lost positions (like being a piece down with no compensation). That is commonly regarded as rudeness, basically such a player is telling his opponent : "Yeah, I know my position is lost. But you're such an idiot that you aren't able to win, not even from this position!".