game
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
RoadVersion wrote:
Once you are hopelessly down, advance your pawns as far as they can go (who knows? you may promote one!) Then, once no pawn has a legal move available, if you have any pieces left on the board, move them directly in front of the opposing players pieces or pawns to have them captured. This will leave you with the King as your only piece on the board with legal moves, which is required for a possible stalemate. Then, as your opponent tries to corner your King, be looking for a square to move to which all the surrounding spaces are “guarded” by opposing pieces, leaving no place to move without moving into check. Your opponent may not see the stalemate position, resulting in a possible draw.
For me, the main reason not to do this is that such moves are so mindnumbingly stupid, I'm sure it's actually hurtful to my chess skill.
Counterargument:
Always resign.
When you get stronger you will understand why resigning when you are behind is the right thing to do.
RoadVersion wrote:
Why ever resign? Make your opponent checkmate you. Once you are miserably behind in the game, it may be humiliating to play to the bitter end and be checkmated, however, the opponent may not be good at end-game play and you may be able to cause a stalemate. A tie is much better than a loss. Too many times the player who is down will resign. As a result, neither player obtains the experience of end-game play. This is another reason to play to the bitter end. To gain experience in end-game play. And, since many times there is a resignation, there are many, otherwise very good players who are not so good at end-game play. This opens up the opportunity to force a draw. Once you are hopelessly down, advance your pawns as far as they can go (who knows? you may promote one!) Then, once no pawn has a legal move available, if you have any pieces left on the board, move them directly in front of the opposing players pieces or pawns to have them captured. This will leave you with the King as your only piece on the board with legal moves, which is required for a possible stalemate. Then, as your opponent tries to corner your King, be looking for a square to move to which all the surrounding spaces are “guarded” by opposing pieces, leaving no place to move without moving into check. Your opponent may not see the stalemate position, resulting in a possible draw.
And then there will come a time in your games that you will see a position is clearly lost and you will not want to give yourself heartburn by playing to the bitter end against competent opponents. And then you will be saying quite the opposite.
The never resign position, and all its associated arguments, go up in smoke once the player gets above the beginner level.
There comes a time when it's more advantageous to cut your losses and move on to the next game.
"Once you are miserably behind in the game, it may be humiliating to play to the bitter end"
Bingo! Not to mention time consuming and extremely boring. Though, it is a good way to make sure that people never play you again, giving you a good look at many different playing styles before you have to move onto a different website/join a different club.
Also, is it really esential to pracice dragging out a hopelessly lost game?
Interesting points of view!
Jun 17, 2009
0
#10
I say Roadversion old chap this forum topic 'never resign' is bad form.
Endgame, middle or openings always resign early.
Blitz chess one can forgive, but longer time controls I rather think not.
Thank You
John Boy
You resign when: You are hopelessly down in material, it is forced mate, you're opponent has 1 or 2 queens, and you have none.
Dont resign when: You are even in material or you have the initiative, you can checkmate someone, ending is 2 bishops and king vs king or a knight and bishop and king vs king.