When should a pro resign?

From today's chess.com/tv show, Pardon our Blunders (airing live wednesdays, 1 pm pacific, now saved for on-demand viewing), our first topic:

Should professionals play games out further before resigning, for the benefit of spectators?

I am a big fan of "Sofia rules", as done by Topalov against Anand. But I don't know the value, if the pros are forced to play games like that. They should be able to choose.

If one of the spectators is Luis Rentero, the sponsor of Linares, yes, they should.  Rentero hates it when SuperGMs agree to short draws on his nickel.

we were talking about losses, not draws here! draws is an obvious related topic, but a much more discussed one.

Wow, the first two responses managed to totally miss the boat. Should GMs resign later, not should GMs not agree to draws.

I personally find it really interesting when a GM resigns in a position I don't see the conclusion to. It's like they left you a little puzzle to solve. As a spectator I'm interested in GM level moves, not the playing out of a loss.

interesting, Loomis! on the other hand, you're a very strong player!

the point of playing the game out further was that more players would understand the results of the games, thus feel more engaged, thus more fans, thus more popularity for professional chess... trying to imagine more average players than yourself as spectators, what do you think of the question?

Woops.  Sorry.  If you feel your position is hopeless, I think you should have the right to resign it.  It could be pretty depressing to be forced to play on in a completely lost position.

A pro should resign once he recognizes he's been outprepared

definitely depressing!!

but, you're a pro, it's part of the territory, you get over it. play a few extra moves very very quickly (since you were going to lose anyway, no need to think about them, literally one second per move), and one minute later you are out of there just the same, but it's much more satisfying for 90% of the people who will see the game.

No, it's just cruel and unusual punishment.  Leave the poor loser with some dignity.

i'd say that if you start playing out moves in seconds after you know you are lost, then the point of not resigning would also be lost.  the average (depending on what average is defined as) player would not be able to understand the plays once it moves that fast.  unless by spectater you mean somoene going over moves afterwards, but i am not sure this hits most average players, either. 

and no, i am not suggesting a "no resign and at least 10 seconds per move rule", just adding my thoughts. 

I agree. I like looking at the position and applying Silman principles to see why it's so bad (if not obvious). In fact Silman wrote an article about this the other week: http://www.chess.com/article/view/when-is-the-right-time-to-resign. The game he cites (Anand vs Topalov) is a good example of this. There's no huge material imbalance but Anand saw that he was just lost and resigned. I loved looking at this position and working out how I would have played, had I been in Topalov's shoes. 

You should play till all hope is lost, the position might be lost, but you still could have a chance if they make a mistake (unlikely at the GM level).  It would also be a benefit to the lower rated players to see GM's play out their games to see the thinking.  Like it was mentioned earlier they sometimes leave you with a little puzzle.  On the other hand it can be very depressing to have to play out a losing position "for the sake of the spectator."  Being a beginner I try to play out everything becasue people make mistakes. 

Other professional sports people are required to play to the end of a match even if you are down 100-0 in Baseball with 1 inning left.  Maybe eveybody should be forced to play out the position until Checkmate is reached?

I've got some (small amount of !) sympathy for the view that (s)he would pays the piper calls the tune. Would it be workable to say that, in games between 2 GMs, draw and resignation requests had to be approved by an arbiter ? Probably not. However, it's the only alternative that I can think of to the current system

No, its good for the rest of us to figure it out.

 GMs can resign their games any time they like... this is the age of the free 3000+ elo chess engine. If don't understand the resignation load up fritz and have a look.

That's an interesting question. I think that, if the position allows for a quick finish, the losing player should allow his opponent either to deliver mate or to get a crushing advantage. I don't see the point of resigning in positions like this:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1010736

By the way, I know that once Svidler resigned against Kramnik in an almost equal position. Svidler stood up and shut off the clock. Kramnik, in astonishement said "But I didn't offer a draw" :) I don't know if it's the game above.

That's silly!

Ussually chess fans are not a legion of computer monkeys who analyze each and every game with Rybka. Many people appreciate for instance when strong players annotate games without using an engine, even if they make many mistakes in their analyses.

By the way, for the game listed above an engine gives an advantage of +1.46, but it offers no clear plan to proceed!

I didn't call for a legion of computer monkeys analyzing every single game with Rybka.  I called for the occassional game which is resigned at a point a beginner doesn't understand to be worked out, by the beginner, so that he understands chess better, and if he needs help he can get it for free... he can fire up any of dozens of free engines. Saying "i couldn't figure it out" doesn't fly anymore... go download stockfish and figure it out.

Of course people appreciate when strong players annotate their games. I do. But I don't expect those players to play out lost positions just so that the clueless don't have to do any work.

"By the way, for the game listed above an engine gives an advantage of +1.46, but it offers no clear plan to proceed!"

That's an usual game in that yeah, Svidler did in fact resign early, he was losing but not lost. Maybe he had a stomach ache, maybe he had a date, maybe he saw something that wasn't there and made a mistake ... People have resigned games where there were forced wins available if they'd only see them. I didn't say GMs never screw up. I said they can resign when they want to. Yeah, if all GMs resigned games when they were losing by half a pawn we'd have reason to complain. The fact is the vast majority of games *(99.9%?) are resigned by a player who is clearly incontrovertibly lost. Spectators who don't understand that need to come up to the level of play where they can see it. As for the one in a thousand game resigned by a player who is losing but might have fought on... I say deal with it.