...
at OTB, it is good manner, against expert or master, to resign such game as gentleman. you may always analyse further after the game ended...
I heard of a time (pre-stockfish) when an expert had a lost position against an IM and offered an immediate resignation in exchange for an analysis session afterwards.
Keep playing until the game is settled, mistakes can be made by the opponent
A match is never over until it's over. The above game was basically just torture for me throughout until I found a way to provide a massive counter punch towards the very end.
You shouldn't resign under any circumstance, it's never too late for an opponent to blunder stalemate.
...
at OTB, it is good manner, against expert or master, to resign such game as gentleman. you may always analyse further after the game ended...
I heard of a time (pre-stockfish) when an expert had a lost position against an IM and offered an immediate resignation in exchange for an analysis session afterwards.
An expert had a lost position against an IM, then who is much stronger IM or expert?
I am guessing you are also a bridge player.
In the US the stronger half of the expert class is the rough equivalent of the lower half FIDE's CM class while the weaker National Masters are the rough equivalent of the stronger half of FIDE's CM class
Starting at the top
GM (Grandmaster)
IM (International Master)
FM (FIDE Master)
CM (Candidate Master)
In the world of bridge expert is more of an accolade given to the strongest masters,
Lots of good advice both ways but let me throw a little something to think on.
It's about the game... if you are losing badly and the other person starts simplifying (trading pieces) seriously consider letting it go (most especially if you know how to force trades). There's little to gain grinding it out (it can be very counter productive). Instead of bumbling around in the dark hoping your going to learn end games take one of the free courses on end games/mating patterns.
At our level (me and you) 15-30 minutes of video watching is more instructive than 15 months of grinding out losses.
That said if your opponent is still playing an interesting game or more importantly (for me at least) doing something beautiful or something you haven't seen before play on.
In the US the stronger half of the expert class (2100 USCF) is the rough equivalent of the lower half FIDE's CM class (2200 FIDE) while the weaker National Masters (2200 USCF) are the rough equivalent of the stronger half of FIDE's CM class (2250 FIDE)
(numbers added to the quote by me)
Usually people say the reverse, i.e. FIDE + 100 = USCF. In other words a weak NM (2200) would only be 2100 FIDE.
That's not always true from what I've seen. In some areas of the US ratings are easier to get than others.
"Experience has shown that no matter how hopeless a position is some chance always crops up for putting up stubborn resistance. You must find such a chance. When your opponent, anticipating an easy win, encounters new problems and difficulties, he may, owing to fatigue, make a mistake and victory will slip away from him. Of course, if both sides play well in this situation, a bad position, whatever the defence, will still remain bad.
But you should do your best and play to the bitter end."
-Gary Kasparov in Kasparov Teaches Chess, page 91.
I do trust that advice.
In the US the stronger half of the expert class (2100 USCF) is the rough equivalent of the lower half FIDE's CM class (2200 FIDE) while the weaker National Masters (2200 USCF) are the rough equivalent of the stronger half of FIDE's CM class (2250 FIDE)
(numbers added to the quote by me)
Usually people say the reverse, i.e. FIDE + 100 = USCF. In other words a weak NM (2200) would only be 2100 FIDE.
That's not always true from what I've seen. In some areas of the US ratings are easier to get than others.
Oops, I was thinking of WCM. CM can be obtained with 2000 and a direct title, but is normally 2200.
"Experience has shown that no matter how hopeless a position is some chance always crops up for putting up stubborn resistance. You must find such a chance. When your opponent, anticipating an easy win, encounters new problems and difficulties, he may, owing to fatigue, make a mistake and victory will slip away from him. Of course, if both sides play well in this situation, a bad position, whatever the defence, will still remain bad.
But you should do your best and play to the bitter end."
-Gary Kasparov in Kasparov Teaches Chess, page 91.
I do trust that advice.
+1
In the US the stronger half of the expert class (2100 USCF) is the rough equivalent of the lower half FIDE's CM class (2200 FIDE) while the weaker National Masters (2200 USCF) are the rough equivalent of the stronger half of FIDE's CM class (2250 FIDE)
(numbers added to the quote by me)
Usually people say the reverse, i.e. FIDE + 100 = USCF. In other words a weak NM (2200) would only be 2100 FIDE.
That's not always true from what I've seen. In some areas of the US ratings are easier to get than others.
Wrong way round. USCF + about 80 = FIDE.
The old BCF rating was about BCF x 8 + 600 = FIDE and a weak NM would have been about 215 BCF in the UK. To put it in perspective, there were plenty of club players up to 200 BCF (about 2200 FIDE) and then they thinned out. Many very strong club players were stuck around 190 to 202 BCF and they had to have something extra to get higher. I suspect that is where the ratings become less linearly related .... that is, ratings above 2200 are "squashed" and that would probably be because it's a limited pool with the GMs beating most others but not picking up many points for it.
215 x 8 + 600 = 2320 FIDE according to that scale but as mentioned, I don't think the equivalence was entirely linear and the answer might be 2250 Fide, for a weak NM.
It was a pretty common conversion, at least a few years ago. I saw it repeated many time on the forums, that for example a 2000 USCF player would only be 1900 FIDE, that NMs are weaker than CMs, etc.
That seems to be approximately true at the top too. For example Wesley So is about 2770 FIDE and 2850 USCF (approximately). So FIDE + 80 = USCF
being a beginner yuh should not resign. yuh should go ahead and play on to explore and get more ideas about games
i view playing won games out to checkmate as an opportunity to exercise the efficiency of my technique & rather enjoy it... i would suggest finishing your games out to the end until you reach a more intermediate or advanced level, to build resilience in your defensive game.
try to trade all the pawns when you are down a piece, stubbornly hold on or launch everything at the opposing king in difficult positions, play for stalemate, perpetual check, a dead-locked position or a fortress when totally busted... sometimes saving a half-point gives more satisfaction than a win & besides, you can always turn a lost game around with a tactical shot or a win on time, especially if your opponent is not experienced enough to keep control.
but if yure playing with a strong player and yure at dead loss position yea yuh can resign because strong players easily turn a minor advantage into a strong advantage
So… back to the OP’s question. I often try to snag games against higher rated players. Once i find myself in a total losing position (too often i might add) I’ll typically resign and say thank you for the game. A time or two I’ve chatted with this “ i know I should resign, but I’d like to play on for the sake of learning” if accepted we play on. Conversely, I don’t mind those that grind it out and force me to “win” the game rather than crowing about how I’m owed a resignation. I feel that at my level, if i cannot convert an opponents blunder to a win, i don’t deserve it. I look at it as just more practice against a real human rather than a computer that never plays like one.
So… back to the OP’s question. I often try to snag games against higher rated players. Once i find myself in a total losing position (too often i might add) I’ll typically resign and say thank you for the game. A time or two I’ve chatted with this “ i know I should resign, but I’d like to play on for the sake of learning” if accepted we play on. Conversely, I don’t mind those that grind it out and force me to “win” the game rather than crowing about how I’m owed a resignation. I feel that at my level, if i cannot convert an opponents blunder to a win, i don’t deserve it. I look at it as just more practice against a real human rather than a computer that never plays like one.
Depends
So… back to the OP’s question. I often try to snag games against higher rated players. Once i find myself in a total losing position (too often i might add) I’ll typically resign and say thank you for the game. A time or two I’ve chatted with this “ i know I should resign, but I’d like to play on for the sake of learning” if accepted we play on. Conversely, I don’t mind those that grind it out and force me to “win” the game rather than crowing about how I’m owed a resignation. I feel that at my level, if i cannot convert an opponents blunder to a win, i don’t deserve it. I look at it as just more practice against a real human rather than a computer that never plays like one.
Depends
Care to elaborate on your position of “depends”? Just curious to understand your thoughts.
so if yure opponent has a queen but yuh doesn't and it's a dead loss endgame position. do yuh even think your opponent makes a blunder?
playing without a knight or bishop is alright yuh can retain it or yuh can manage it by some dirty tricks like exchanging all pawns as possible and exchanging the pieces with an idea of draw
so if yure opponent has a queen but yuh doesn't and it's a dead loss endgame position. do yuh even think your opponent makes a blunder?
If you’ve responded to my question (I’m not sure) my answer is “no, i don’t expect my opponent to blunder anything.” But if my opponent is open to playing on for the sake of learning (again usually rated higher than me), what’s to lose? I will likely still lose and my opponent will likely still win, but it isn’t about winning or losing for me at that point.
if you want to make progress in real chess (not online blitzing and bulleting) you should analyse your moves and mistakes first instead playing completely lost game and hoping your opponent would drop both rooks, queen etc...
self critics should be at first place, not oportunistic appproach.
at OTB, it is good manner, against expert or master, to resign such game as gentleman. you may always analyse further after the game ended.
how to convert and checkmate when you are queen up or whatever.... think every beginner should always start with basic endgames, at least this is what old masters back in 90s used to advise us. later on you go to more complex positions step by step.
why engames? because every position, when you have extra material is normally reduced till the endgame, You don't go for crazy checkmate combinations as priority when you are piece,or three pawns up, or rook up. You first stabilise your own position and start to reduce material gradually... systemathically pushing your opponent into lost endgame.