Never resign on the first offer. A good rule of thumb is half the prize money plus the rating difference times three, if offered less than that you should play on.
When should a pro resign?
Sort:
bondocel wrote:
In the game above I would have expected Svidler to play on. To my mind I think that is not a resignable position and Firebird doesn't think that too! Sure, that doesn't mean a GM should play a R+K vs. Q+K ending.
See my edited response in my post above about the Svidler game.
BTW... a training method I used quite a lot (two years ago) was to take any game with a resignation I didn't understand, load it into a chess engine, and play it out from both sides... It was darn good practice IMHO.
Oct 6, 2010
0
#24
The sports analogy doesn't really work here, but I will make it anyway 
. Like, if an NBA team is down by 20, they still play 5 guys and have to wait for the 48 minutes to expire, right? I guess from that perspective, you would think that pros should have to play the game until the end??
That said, chess is a completely different animal. The other sports/games don't really offer the option to resign, or do they? Can a team forfeit whenever they want? I don't even know the answer to that one as far as the rules go, but it certainly isn't EVER mentioned as an option?
I personally think that if the pros made/make more of an effort with amteurs, sponsors, etc -- then this wouldn't be as much of an issue. If there was more of a personal relatability (I think that is a word 
) wih the "best and the rest" -- then they wouldn't care as much if the game ended before it was TOTALLY over. Chess Pros need to understand that they aren't "intellectual elitists" and that they do OWE something to their fans.
Everytime Randy Moss quits on a pass-route, he certainly has to hear it from the fans (but then again, he still gets the paycheck in the end. Sorry, bad sports analogy again...)
However, in the end, money talks and ******** walks, right? So if a sponsor told me, "Danny, you are going to play until checkmate, humiliate yourself, and you are going to like it damn it!!!" Guess what I would do???
yes sir...
Oct 6, 2010
0
#25
"However, in the end, money talks and ******** walks, right? So if a sponsor told me, "Danny, you are going to play until checkmate, humiliate yourself, and you are going to like it damn it!!!" Guess what I would do???
yes sir..."
That's the sports analogy bit I was trying to nail, thanks for the better explanation!
Sports teams can resign in a way: they can substitute all the stars and bring on the bench-warmers (I think this happens quite a lot in baseball and in hockey you might see a lot of the checking line). There are similar debates in those sports as to chess regarding whether such behaviour (or fielding a sub-par team in the case of e.g. the Premier League in England) warrants punishment.
Oct 6, 2010
0
#26
Which brings the value issue back to this: if you want to mass market a game or a sport to an audience, you have to either meet the expectations of the audience OR mold those norms and expectations. Examples.....
Boxing match: early round knockouts happen. The audience expects it, but doesn't like it.
Football, basketball, soccer: the expectation is that they will play to the end.
Tennis: closer analogy, it's two individuals. Still, you don't expect a quitter, and would you be a fan of a John McEnroe who quit all the time...
Oct 6, 2010
0
#27
I find it interesting that in no other sport/game can you simply 'give up'. All other sports require play until the end, and this may be for the benefit of the spectators.
dpruess wrote:
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?
No...this is their profession. Its how they make a living.
So basketball, American football, hockey teams that put out their 3rd, 4th string guys when they're up by a lot at the end of the game are still playing? No way, they've effectively quit by pulling the actual team out.
Also in sports your ability to score isn't diminished as you lose. In chess your ability to win is greatly diminished as you start to lose. It would be like asking a soccer team to continue playing without legs or a tennis player to continue after his racket has been broken. Your analogies make no sense.
Oct 6, 2010
0
#30
orangehonda wrote:
So basketball, American football, hockey teams that put out their 3rd, 4th string guys when they're up by a lot at the end of the game are still playing? No way, they've effectively quit by pulling the actual team out.
Also in sports your ability to score isn't diminished as you lose. In chess your ability to win is greatly diminished as you start to lose. It would be like asking a soccer team to continue playing without legs or a tennis player to continue after his racket has been broken. Your analogies make no sense.
I'm just saying that it's interesting... :(
bondocel wrote:
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.
It wouldn't be that game -- even I can tell that's lost, I'm sure a professional would rather not waste his time.
vowles_23 wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
So basketball, American football, hockey teams that put out their 3rd, 4th string guys when they're up by a lot at the end of the game are still playing? No way, they've effectively quit by pulling the actual team out.
Also in sports your ability to score isn't diminished as you lose. In chess your ability to win is greatly diminished as you start to lose. It would be like asking a soccer team to continue playing without legs or a tennis player to continue after his racket has been broken. Your analogies make no sense.
I'm just saying that it's interesting... :(
Didn't mean to pick on you or whoever said it. Yeah it is interesting, it's been brought up a lot actually, so I'm just putting it out there for those people to consider.
Oct 6, 2010
0
#33
Loomis wrote:
Wow, the first two responses managed to totally miss the boat.
Yep. I missed the boat.
the NBA guys can still score with 5 guys. You cannot do anything when down a rook(for no compensation). Let them resign.
I agree that if you feel you are lost, you should resign. But even grandmasters sometimes resign prematurely, out of frustration, where there were good drawing chances. Kasparov resign against Deep Blue in a position where there was a perpetual. Personally, I think it's your duty as a chess player, to put up the toughest resistance possible. I resign only when I feel there is no way I can change the outcome of the game.
Oct 6, 2010
0
#36
orangehonda wrote:
vowles_23 wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
So basketball, American football, hockey teams that put out their 3rd, 4th string guys when they're up by a lot at the end of the game are still playing? No way, they've effectively quit by pulling the actual team out.
Also in sports your ability to score isn't diminished as you lose. In chess your ability to win is greatly diminished as you start to lose. It would be like asking a soccer team to continue playing without legs or a tennis player to continue after his racket has been broken. Your analogies make no sense.
I'm just saying that it's interesting... :(
Didn't mean to pick on you or whoever said it. Yeah it is interesting, it's been brought up a lot actually, so I'm just putting it out there for those people to consider.
Okay, but this got me thinking.
Once you are down in a game of chess, it is hard to come back, yes?
This is the same with sport. Once the opposition is up in any game, they only need to play equally as good as you to win. If they do not, then you can make a comeback. This is the same as chess, yes?
vowles_23 wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
vowles_23 wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
So basketball, American football, hockey teams that put out their 3rd, 4th string guys when they're up by a lot at the end of the game are still playing? No way, they've effectively quit by pulling the actual team out.
Also in sports your ability to score isn't diminished as you lose. In chess your ability to win is greatly diminished as you start to lose. It would be like asking a soccer team to continue playing without legs or a tennis player to continue after his racket has been broken. Your analogies make no sense.
I'm just saying that it's interesting... :(
Didn't mean to pick on you or whoever said it. Yeah it is interesting, it's been brought up a lot actually, so I'm just putting it out there for those people to consider.
Okay, but this got me thinking.
Once you are down in a game of chess, it is hard to come back, yes?
This is the same with sport. Once the opposition is up in any game, they only need to play equally as good as you to win. If they do not, then you can make a comeback. This is the same as chess, yes?
In chess if I'm a rook down I can play perfect moves and the result will be a loss. In a sport if everything suddenly clicks for you team you can score enough to win.
So in chess it's up to your opponent to make poor moves. If it's a simple position, there are no poor moves to make, only obvious good ones. That's why pros will play on when they're objectively behind, but there are complications. If their position doesn't improve, as soon as the position becomes simple they usually resign right away.
Oct 6, 2010
0
#38
orangehonda wrote:
vowles_23 wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
vowles_23 wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
So basketball, American football, hockey teams that put out their 3rd, 4th string guys when they're up by a lot at the end of the game are still playing? No way, they've effectively quit by pulling the actual team out.
Also in sports your ability to score isn't diminished as you lose. In chess your ability to win is greatly diminished as you start to lose. It would be like asking a soccer team to continue playing without legs or a tennis player to continue after his racket has been broken. Your analogies make no sense.
I'm just saying that it's interesting... :(
Didn't mean to pick on you or whoever said it. Yeah it is interesting, it's been brought up a lot actually, so I'm just putting it out there for those people to consider.
Okay, but this got me thinking.
Once you are down in a game of chess, it is hard to come back, yes?
This is the same with sport. Once the opposition is up in any game, they only need to play equally as good as you to win. If they do not, then you can make a comeback. This is the same as chess, yes?
In chess if I'm a rook down I can play perfect moves and the result will be a loss. In a sport if everything suddenly clicks for you team you can score enough to win.
So in chess it's up to your opponent to make poor moves. If it's a simple position, there are no poor moves to make, only obvious good ones. That's why pros will play on when they're objectively behind, but there are complications. If their position doesn't improve, as soon as the position becomes simple they usually resign right away.
"So in chess it is up to your opponent to play poor moves."
It doesn't seem to me that you understood what I said.
I am saying that you can only make a comeback from a losing position if your opponent doesn't play as well as you from then on.
Sure it is a different thing when, maybe comparable to playing with 16 people on the field rather than 18 (if you are a piece down), but the principle is the same.
vowles_23 wrote:
"So in chess it is up to your opponent to play poor moves."
It doesn't seem to me that you understood what I said.
I am saying that you can only make a comeback from a losing position if your opponent doesn't play as well as you from then on.
Sure it is a different thing when, maybe comparable to playing with 16 people on the field rather than 18 (if you are a piece down), but the principle is the same.
Ok then, let me put it this way. In a quiet position if you're losing fairly badly, lets say down a knight, your opponent can make literally 100 inaccuracies and errors as long as they don't blunder material. At the same time you can play "best" moves every time (so by comparison your moves are consistently better) but because you're losing so much this doesn't matter anymore.
That's how a player 300-400 points below you (or me) can score the odd upset against you (or me). After one small slip, if we lose a knight, it doesn't matter that 49/50 of our moves are better (after all we have better technique and understanding) it's that one move that essentially decided the game.
This is also why consistency is a huge part of overall chess strength.
Oct 6, 2010
0
#40
orangehonda wrote:
vowles_23 wrote:
"So in chess it is up to your opponent to play poor moves."
It doesn't seem to me that you understood what I said.
I am saying that you can only make a comeback from a losing position if your opponent doesn't play as well as you from then on.
Sure it is a different thing when, maybe comparable to playing with 16 people on the field rather than 18 (if you are a piece down), but the principle is the same.
Ok then, let me put it this way. In a quiet position if you're losing fairly badly, lets say down a knight, your opponent can make literally 100 inaccuracies and errors as long as they don't blunder material. At the same time you can play "best" moves every time (so by comparison your moves are consistently better) but because you're losing so much this doesn't matter anymore.
That's how a player 300-400 points below you (or me) can score the odd upset against you (or me). After one small slip, if we lose a knight, it doesn't matter that 49/50 of our moves are better (after all we have better technique and understanding) it's that one move that essentially decided the game.
This is also why consistency is a huge part of overall chess strength.
Okay, I can see where you are coming from, but I think that 100 inaccuracies would lose the position. Or maybe not. I've never seen 100 inaccuracies been made before.
In the game above I would have expected Svidler to play on. To my mind I think that is not a resignable position and Firebird doesn't think that too! Sure, that doesn't mean a GM should play a R+K vs. Q+K ending.