Resignation Etiquette???

"Yes active moves are best anyway... but look how houdini plays a rook down.  It's pathetic.  I have much better chances against houdini at rook odds than against a human GM at rook odds.  You have to play somewhat speculatively or the win is just too easy."

Maybe I should try it out some time, although I don't feel like it. I remember a rook up endgame (queens on the board, but most pieces were off) that an adamant non-resigner challenged me to beat houdini from -- I won, but was surprised at how it could actually make me think in such a ridiculous position. It was at that point that I no longer thought there was a 100% chance of me winning that position against a computer -- very high, but definitely not 100%.

I just remember getting completely owned against chessmaster with piece odds, even though I managed to trade queens in the first few moves. He just totally took over the initiative and his positional advantage, eventually, overtook my extra material. That's what precise moves do.

It was a long time ago, though -- maybe I would do much better now . Unfortunately there is something unappealing to me about playing an odds game -- the game seems really artifical lol.

Well wafflemaster, I think you don't realize how much technique positions can require. Winning a pawn up against a lower rated player may be easy, but that's only because he follows up with bad moves. Winning a pawn up against absolute best play is extremely difficult. If on the other hand you had a chance to refute a trap and go a piece up instead, well, I would prefer my opponent to play that way against me.

This was ozzie's coach's point lol.

Anyway I know what you mean.  I've practiced equal, better, and winning positions against houdini and lost them all.  Sometimes it seems tactics appear out of nothing.

There is obviously a current interest in the topic.    If you are no longer interested in topic, then don't click on.  Problem solved!

I have a feeling for example that I wouldn't be able to beat houdini with piece odds, simply because it is so good at not dying, and every way I try to execute him runs into one of his resources. It's not because it is intentionally playing bad moves; it's simply trying to mine the most it can out of the position.

As I said, there are exceptions, but I do think those don't occur as often as people think.

 A pawn up is completely different.  Even a pawn for a piece is different.  I'm saying take an equal middlegame position and remove a minor piece for one side.  I can't quite imagine there being a technically difficult defense.  I may not win for another 50 moves, but that's fine, I believe I could conduct the game such that the win is never in doubt, I'm in no hurry.

#85: Ok, fair enough. I see the point, but I personally think the mind can get a workout from finding the best moves in (many) bad positions.

I couldn't imagine it either, until I played the computer. So I understand that you can't conceive of it. It seems as if everything should be easy, but it wasn't for me, not against such a strong beast.

Yes, from the starting position I don't think I'd have good chances to beat houdini.  My main reasoning is, if you can see these amazing tactical resources, then fine, play like houdini does.  If you can't then emulating the tough defense in hopes that the resources will appear for you is delusional IMO.

Well if you want to emulate a computer's play that's fine.  Just be sure you're not doing it half-assed.  Those grim defenses require that you spot what I would call hidden resources as soon as your opponent slips just a little.  Otherwise it comes off as easy, a slow but sure grind for your opponent.

Delusional? Well it's delusional to think you can perfectly emulate it, sure.

The point is people think that "no matter how well they play" it doesn't matter in certain positions. I'm saying it does matter. Even if you do play the absolute best moves, you may still lose, but I certainly think striving to play really good moves even in pretty bad positions will help you in the long run -- every once in a while you may save an unlikely position. And sure, it forces you to be a good analyst, whether you are analyzing moves in a bad position or a good one -- you have to conclude what is the best.

I think more people should play positions against houdini to realize how resourceful positions can be.

I agree with Patzer King= If you can make one more move You should stay with the game

I would argue trying to pretend to be a cold blooded engine would help your chess

Seriously, who would want their opponents to suddenly turn into houdini when they were ahead? Would they want the TD to tell them, ok, your opponent is sick, houdini is filling in for him, finish off your game? If I can get this ability of transformation even to a small extent, I think I'd manage to intimidate the heck out of people.

Excellent analogy, great breath of sanity, except that too many Brainiacs on this site will segue into concluding something like -- "always go down swinging."  Or some other hairsplitting conclusion.

Then, they will never resign, unfortunately.

NM Ozzie's comment (post #61), was seconded by a former USCF CC National Champion, and seems eminently reasonable.

Let's go with that, and pray this thread goes back to sleep.  

My goal is to become the first GM to say "you can play on any position because there is no net loss."

Unfortunately, that opinion probably dooms me to not become a GM . Everyone will be so mad at me they will refuse to give me the title!

I guess we just see it differently.  I resign late too, but I don't try to emulate houdini's play.  It's a fair point though that playing houdini would show how certain positions are more difficult than a player may think.  It's been a while since I've tried a position against it.  Right now I'm more enamored in the ideas of human players, playing over some Korchnoi games.  Occasionally I catch houdini suggesting a move I think is not correct even if the eval refuses to agree with me after a long think, and each time this happens I distrust it a bit more.  Of course in tactical situations its moves are excellent, but ones where a general understanding is necessary sometimes it stumbles.  It may back up the move with very good play, but I think to myself, this is not a way humans can play, it's better to follow a clear idea.

Maybe it's styalistic differences, maybe I'm just wrong, but that's where I am right now.

I don't think of houdini as something to trust, as much as something that spits out extremely interesting ideas and defenses. Certainly I will think houdini is high sometimes, but what I like about it is that it considers things humans wouldn't, and so I'm exposed to a lot of interesting ideas and resources nobody talks about. It's not important for it to always be right.

Resign lost endgames, or when you drop a piece in an even position, all the while subject to an endless list of self-generated caveats.  The End ?

Hardly, but Hope Springs Eternal.  

This is why I respect people's decisions, and don't presumptuously attach motivations to them, and train myself to never assume an opponent will not resign. Because people make themselves so offended by the issue, is why there are endless complaints on this.

Whether it is ideal or not for someone to play on, I think we would all be a lot happier if we were more prepared to carry out our responsibilities. With this attitude, I never allow myself to get upset when someone doesn't resign. Would I prefer to not have to spend my extra 15 minutes and win right away? Who wouldn't? But I am able to avoid getting rattled and can see both sides to the issue.

You guys can continue to complain; only for your own sake would I suggest you should try to stop doing that.

Of course, I do end up wasting my time as I debate with these complainers. That's something I need to work on.

Elubas, so who in this forum has "complained" about people who do not resign??????