vowles_23 wrote:
Yay finally I am out of this discussion!
*Phew*
... always has to have the last word. 
When should a pro resign?
Sort:
Oct 7, 2010
0
#63
what other way to leave a conversation? LOL I try to get the last word in all the time. 
ChessMarkstheSpot wrote: what other way to leave a conversation? LOL I try to get the last word in all the time.
"Always let a woman have the last word in an argument, for no matter what you do, she'll have it eventually." (No offence intended.)
ChessMarkstheSpot wrote:
what other way to leave a conversation? LOL I try to get the last word in all the time.
Oh I see how it is. That's not going to work this time!
Haha jk, feel free to have it =]
Interesting thread , for a change ! I think a pro shouldnt be required to play beyond the point in which he feels his position is hopeless. However, for the spectators it would be nice to have an IM or GM commentator explain why he felt the time was ripe to resign. In this manner the spectators and the players should be happy. I had an interesting conversation with a 2600 GM once in which he told me that if he had a bad position with an FM he would continue playing because , in his experience, he would get 2 or 3 chances to get back in the game, with an IM he would likely get 1 or 2 chances and with a GM under 2600 maybe one chance but with a GM 2600 and up his position only gets worse so he tends to resign those.
bsrasmus wrote:
Here is what Donald Byrne said about playing on to mate in his famous "Game of the Century" against Bobby Fischer:
"First of all, you have to remember that in 1956 no one knew that Bobby Fischer was going to become Bobby Fischer! He was just a very promising 13-year-old kid who played a great game against me. When it got to the position where I was lost, I asked some of the other competitors if it might be a nice thing to let the kid mate me, as a kind of tribute to the fine game he played. They said, ‘Sure, why not?’ and so I did."
Isn't that an excellent reason to play on to mate? As a tribute to a finely played game? Surely the game doesn't have to be "Game of the Century" caliber to earn that tribute.
I agree, that is an interesting point. I think sometimes you can learn from how your opponent mates you (mind the pun) and also sometimes you just want so see how they mate you or you want your opponent to have the satisfaction of checkamting you.
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?
A GM should never resign until they feel all chances to at least draw are exhausted. I have seen GMs resign when they get put into a position that is just "passive defense", and not lost yet, and the game could probably continue another 30 moves before it is checkmate.
I don't like seeing a resignation w/o some kind of forced checkmate or at least some kind of heavy material loss imminent.
I suppose some GMs bet on a plan working, and if that plan does not work they throw in the towel, I would like to see the backup plan some times.
Frankdawg wrote:
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?
A GM should never resign until they feel all chances to at least draw are exhausted.
That is when 99% of them resign.
I have seen GMs resign when they get put into a position that is just "passive defense", and not lost yet
Maybe to you it wasn't lost, obviously to them it was.
I don't like seeing a resignation w/o some kind of forced checkmate or at least some kind of heavy material loss imminent.
You're probably good enough to realize a position can be completely lost with equal material and no mate looming. It can be as simple as a clear plan for 1 side and no active play available for the other.
I suppose some GMs bet on a plan working, and if that plan does not work they throw in the towel, I would like to see the backup plan some times.
This isn't how chess is played at all.
i was thinking that not every single game would have live commentators who could clarify the reasons for the resignation and play out a 20 move sample variation for the edification of the audience. i was also thinking that a lot of chess games are consumed by people playing them over in a game viewer later. finally, i think puzzling it out for yourself-- a lot of work. if you're serious about improving, you might find that to be a fun challenge, but if we are talking about making something entertaining for a wide range of people, i don't think we can count on that being the average perspective.
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?
I didn't read this entire thread, so I don't know if it was covered or not, but isn't this spectator requirement better addressed during post-game analysis as arranged by whoever is covering the event? I don't know that GMs would want to (nor do I think they should feel obligated to) expend their energy on a game that is for all intents over. It may well reduce the quality of play during games later in the round which is not good for either the GMs or the spectators.
some other sports ,players may resign if they unable to win, cycling, running, golf, tennis
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Yay finally I am out of this discussion!
*Phew* :D