
Why Do Chess Players Resign?
While I have been playing competitive chess for almost 50 years, the question in the title of this article never occurred to me. It looked so natural: if you find yourself in a completely hopeless situation where you see no way out, then you resign. A recent game played by one of my students completely changed this perspective.
Black resigned in this position even though after the forced sequence of moves 45...Nxd5 46.exd5 Kf5, it is White who has to fight hard to survive (you can use an engine to check possible variations there).
The main question here is, why did the kid who played Black decide to resign? He said that he thought he was losing and didn't check the variations. Therefore, his decision to give up was based purely on emotion, not calculation.
Indeed, Black's position was completely lost, and had White played a simple move, 45.e5, he would have been winning. The flashy move 45. Nd5+?? superficially looked like the proverbial "finishing touch," and this is what really motivated Black to resign. If you think that only inexperienced players make such mistakes, here is a very recent example from the highest possible level:
Nakamura resigned in this position, which was actually winning for him after the simple move 33.Rfg3. Here, you probably don't even need an engine's help to see why White is indeed winning!
Again, the move 32...Bg4 appeared so crushing that Nakamura didn't even check the variations, otherwise he would have seen the move 33.Rfg3 even in a bullet game. As you can see, in many cases, a resignation is just an emotional decision, and the simplest remedy is to calm down after your opponent delivers what appears to be a kill shot and see what's really going on.
A very similar situation happens when a chess player starts a combination and his opponent resigns because he doesn't want to look like an idiot who cannot calculate a couple of moves ahead. His resignation is a way to say, "yes, I screwed up, but at least I am good enough to see the point of the opponent's combination." A classical example is the following game:
In this position, Carl Goering announced checkmate in two moves, as it was customary at that time. The legendary Adolf Anderssen immediately resigned the game to demonstrate that the creator of "The Immortal Game" and "The Evergreen Game" could calculate two moves ahead and see the point of White's combination.
Indeed, after 35...Nf8 36. Qxf8!! Kxf8 37. Rh8 checkmate. Normally, we don't analyze moves like 35...Re8 since it drops a rook with a check. Nevertheless, in this particular situation, it was a winning continuation since after 36.Qxe8 Nf8, the black king gets an escape square in the case of 37. Qxf8? Kxf8 38. Rh8 Ke7.
A very similar situation happened 120 years later:
Why did Black resign in a completely drawn position? Because he definitely read a good book written by a very strong grandmaster, where on page 51, you can find the following position:
The book brings a detailed explanation of why this is a dead draw. Also, you can read there: "Note that White would be winning if the pieces were shifted one file to the left." In other words, it says that in the following position, White is winning:
This is not the case, as it is the same dead draw.
Finally, let's discuss a common situation that happened recently in another high-profile game between GMs Harika Dronavalli and Kateryna Lagno. After a very tense game with numerous mistakes typical of rapid chess, the game reached the following position, where Lagno resigned:
"No way is it a draw!" is what most of you will say. Yes, you are absolutely correct, White is completely winning. The question here is not about evaluating the position, but rather whether Black should resign. To better understand my point, let's look at the following classical game:
This game was played in the famous Candidates Tournament, Zurich 1953. White was one of the best players in the world, GM Samuel Reshevsky. Moreover, the game was adjourned, which meant Reshevsky could legally analyze the position on a board, move the pieces, and consult with any book or another player. Yet, his opponent, GM Efim Geller, refused to resign and decided to continue the fight.
Why? Here is what GM David Bronstein says in his annotations to the game: "In order to understand what follows, keep in mind that there are some rook endings in which two extra pawns are not enough to win. As an example, sometimes it is impossible to win the ending with rook and f- and h-pawns against rook, or rook and two connected passed pawns against rook, if the pawns can be blockaded. Geller is hoping to transpose into one of these endgames." As you can see, in the end, Geller's tenacity, coupled with some stalemate tricks, saved the game.
Now, let's get back to the Harika vs. Lagno game. Unlike Reshevsky, Harika couldn't possibly adjourn the game to analyze it on a board, move the pieces, and consult her friends or endgame manuals. Moreover, she was tired and had only one minute on her clock to complete the game.
Yes, Lagno was also very tired, and she had only 16 seconds left. But what did she have to lose by continuing the game instead of giving up right away? No doubt, just like in most of the previous games we analyzed today, her decision to resign was purely emotional.
I hope, my dear readers, you got the main point of this article. Don't resign! But if you've really had enough and want to call it a day, at least make sure that you are definitely, unquestionably losing!
Please share in the comments your curious cases of a premature resignation.