I think a quick resignation is always more "honourable" because, by such a resignation one shows he is wise enough to analyse his game and also the opponent's game and to see he can't win. Of course, one has to reach this conclusion prior to resigning... If for instance, you lost your queen because you were drunk but you see the opponent is a weaker player that you can still outmanouver, you should not resign (but maybe join the AA :)). If you look at GM games, often you see a resignation even if there is a material equilibrium but the position is hopeless for one of the players...
Quick Mate vs Take all pieces / force resignation
Sort:
I agree with WizardOfOzz. Resigning shows that you respect your opponent and know that, given the position on the board, he would undoubtedly be able to checkmate you even if you played perfectly. Experienced players understand this and take as much satisfaction from a win by resignation when the win was obvious as they do from a checkmate. Actually, some would be quite peeved if you kept playing in an obviously lost position.
If you are "beating your opponent to death" that's really his fault for not resigning earlier, if it was clear you were winning.
Playing to the 'bitter end' regardless of severe odds against you is the mark of the amateur.
DerWustenfuchs wrote:
If you are "beating your opponent to death" that's really his fault for not resigning earlier, if it was clear you were winning.
OK... I get that point.. however, isn't the goal of the game "to win"... not beat to death - or be beaten to death by - your opponent? I can see it if they're avoiding a mate at all costs... but feel like if I'm being beaten, it's wrong to not play the game out to mate.
Either way, thanks for sharing guys.
Indeed. Personally I think the main cause of contention is actually the fact that we all draw the line at what a "hopeless position" is at different points. I mean, if for example, one person being a rook or minor piece down without positional compensation may be something of a gray area as to whether it's "hopeless". Certainly at the grandmaster level it's probably a hopeless game, but at the level of most players opinions will vary. So that seems to me to be the main source of conflict - at what point is a position considered "hopeless"?
Nov 4, 2009
0
#6
My teacher told me that if I hang a piece in the opening that I should resign. The point, in his eyes, is to get better at chess. There is nothing to be gained from trying to "complicate" a position such as that, or trying to "swindle" the opponent, or what have you.
The thoughts one has during such games are terrible for your chess development.
The principal feature of the many old threads on this topic is that the "never resign" crowd tends to never resign their position that it's ok to never resign if that's what you want to do.
<lighting a candle for the departed Suggo>
The conventional wisdom among experienced players is that knowing when to resign is the mark of a knowledgable and respectful opponent. It has happened that a player has let mate be delivered as a salute to an opponent's well-played combo. That's uncommon though, and personally I don't need to mate anyone to enjoy the game.
Nov 5, 2009
0
#8
In this famous game, then world champion Gary Kasparov resigned, since he was playing against an indomitable AI Deep Blue, and thought for sure that he was a goner. IBM says that this is the best game ever played by any AI. But, the world champion resigned a drawn position. Black can get perpetual check starting with ...Qe3!
Where is the honour in that? Fight to the death. Give no quarter, ask for no quarter. Resolve to learn from every game.
There is no honour in resigning a drawn game. You should really only resign, not when you think you will lose, but when you think you will not learn anything new. :)
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
My teacher told me that if I hang a piece in the opening that I should resign. The point, in his eyes, is to get better at chess. There is nothing to be gained from trying to "complicate" a position such as that, or trying to "swindle" the opponent, or what have you.
The thoughts one has during such games are terrible for your chess development.
One can argue that playing with enough skill to overcome the disadvantage, or lay a trap for your opponent, is great for chess development. Think of it as playing an odds game despite your opponent being of a similar level. Or, um, something.
The question I have is, as a person kind of just starting to "get it" about chess, Don't we all want to win (or lose) honorably? So which way is best to win / lose in the most honorable way?
I don't see it as honorable to resign from a game at "mate in 1" or 2. Finish the game if it's a good game and the winner is worthy of the mate.
Flip side... Why bother beating your opponent to death to the point where a funeral has no loving attendees? HA! That's not honorable. ;)
I feel a resignation is honorable "mid-game" when you may be witnessing your opponent is much better or you've made some grave mistake. Get it over with and maybe challenge same player again.
TMHO...