Opponent: I Should Resign on move 9 a piece down. Agree?


dalephilly (#68)

I'm confused now, as that  line wafflemaster suggested starting at 32 (in post #58), the board was not configured like that at 32

Eberulf wrote:

khpa21 (#45)

I was down 3 points up until move 34 of the game, when he got his second queen.  The game ended on move 37 after he demanded that I resign. In the 3 last moves of the game he was not making his best move on any of them, two queens or no.  Then I saw that check that opened  up for me, there at the end, I thought "might as well", and evidently that really ticked him off.

So don't know what you're talking about.

The pivotal mistake for me did not occur until my knight move at #32 which was a blunder. I could have moved NF7 there and completely forestalled what he was doing as best I can tell.

The Pivotal  mistake ocurred on move 3 (..Nge7) This move blocks your king bishop (delays castleing) in your set-up takes two moves to reach an inferior square (Ng6) and puts no pressure on the center ( whites undefended king pawn) followed by pawn to ...b5  that drove the white king bishop to its desired attacking diagonal allow those kinds of combinations to take place at ...f7. White was wise to open the position with d4 ! Make sure you get off the starting blocks in good shape against strong opponents ! Wink


When I started playing chess, I had no idea what I was doing and the way I learned how to play was coming on this site and playing people. Most of my early games, I did things like hang pieces, forget certain rules, etc. etc. I learned strategies through some books; and through repetition made it so I just about never hang pieces anymore. However, I learned THE MOST when I lost a game, pure and simple.

"You can learn a line from a win, and a book from a defeat." -Paul Brown.

That quote means that before you become a dominant chess player, you have to lose first. I lost A LOT when I first started playing chess, but I found that the harder my opponents were, even if they had me beat early, I'd learn from them late. I played people hundreds of points higher than me and would get dominated by them, but later through analyzation would come to see what I was doing wrong. Computer analysis of finished games helps too.

The point is, if you play good opponents you're going to get games where it's clear early you're going to lose. This happened to me a lot of times, and personally I'm glad I played out those lost games. I truly believe it made me a better player. At your level, you should DEFINATELY play a game to try to learn from it.

WITH THAT SAID, if I was a grandmaster, and I did something stupid, like losing my queen by move 10 for no compensation, I'd probably just give up. Because at that point I'd be good enough where getting beat down isn't going to teach me anything. If you get to a point where you're REALLY good, and it's clear you're not going to win, it's considered polite to resign.

But as I said, at your level I think playing it out could teach you something. Endgame play, maybe how to fight for a draw. I learned that if I'm down material early, it's okay to sacrifice the rest to attempt to get the king. I learned because one game I was so far down early material wise I just used the rest of it to destroy the cover around the king and go for his throat. Can't remember what happened but I think I either won, or was very close to winning. I learned a lot through playing games that looked early like I had no shot of winning.

For you, when I look at this game, you can learn this: Always be careful of pawns getting too close to your last row. Even if it's the middlegame, and you still have big time pieces, like you queens and rooks and such, it's never to early to promote a pawn if you can. I've seen guys have chances to promote early, but don't due to missing the oppurtunity. It's simply because they're used to only looking for pawn promotion near the endgame. While that's usually when you'd look to make a pawn a piece, it doesn't always HAVE to be. You may already know that, but it's what I took from this game.

So should you resign by move 9? Only if you believe you know enough that you can't learn anything from playing it out. Your opponent was a jerk. Asking people to resign is ALWAYS rude. Chess is a gentlemen's game, and both sides are given teh chance to resign when they feel the time is right for them too. From now on, do not resign until YOU want to, not if your opponent asks you too.

P.S. Sorry about the long speech-like post, had a lot to say. Tongue out


I feel it is totally up to the losing player as to when they should resign. If they feel they are getting some value out of the game or have a slight chance to atleast draw then why not continue.

I personaly like to play the games out when I am in the winning postion so I can continue to improve/practice my endgame.

Players who don't like people to play on are probably weak in end games, and should be put to the test.

I also agree that the higher up the ratings you are the earlier you should resign.

That's my two cents Smile

AnthonyCG wrote:

It was extremely unsportsmanlike for him to ask you to resign regardless of the situation.

What he said.

Teary_Oberon wrote:
tbischel wrote:

Its not your job to beat you, thats his job.  If he needs you to lay down and die, thats just arrogent.  I've played on in games down a queen and pulled out a win.  He needs to get over himself.

Yeah, I've seen that line before. Either 1) you had sufficient positional compensation for the Queen, 2) your opponent was a low rated amateur 3) you opponent was needlessly careless and just did not pay attention, 4) you were playing fast time controls and the opponent was in time trouble.

Without any one of condtions 1, 2, or 4 being met, then you should be a good sport and resign your game when down a whole Queen. I did not include condition 3, because it is rude and demeaning to assume such a thing about an opponent.

But then again, that is what the issue is all about isn't it: sportsmanship, manners and ettiquette. Some people just don't have them...

You have an odd definition of "good sportsmanship".  I'm not saying throw the pieces, make a stink, try and distract your opponent with your bad breath...  In what other sport are you expected to give up when you are losing?  I'd personally characterize giving up as poor sportsmanship.  I agree with the last poster that deciding when to surrender should be totally on the person trying to hang on.  Kasparov played on in a "hopeless position" in the last game against Deep Blue.  So did Topalov in his game against Anand.  While they both eventually resigned, I don't find it bad form that they continued to fight.

Eberulf wrote:

wafflemaster (#58):

"Conceivably thebest case scenario, you exchange off the e pawn but you would have a totally lost endgame."

In that scenario the total squares my pawns are advanced beyond their start is 7; his pawns the total is 3.

And we're left with my knight vs. his rook.

Curious as to what that 4 square pawn advancement differential for me counts in terms of points.

Oh and also my king seems to be in a superior position to his for the end game.

Just fascinated you can look at that and just on a glance know its lost for black

Endgame positions have a few different characteristics concerning pawns... in king and pawn endgames it's useful to have more pawns on their original square vs your opponent's pawn on original squares because the 2 move vs 1 move option will let you win tempo battles.

In many other endgames with pieces left on the board, it's often useful to have the base of your pawn chain as far away from the action as possible (such as on your 2nd rank) because these will be targets for the enemy.

So it's not the space or moves away from original squares I'd look at.  In the rook and knight endgame what will count against black is 1) black can't stop the rook from infiltrating due to 3 open files and 2) pawn targets on both sides of the board mean black will be overworked on defense.

So black will try active defense, but shouldn't be able to generate a passer... at least not a dangerous one... bottom line is the rook can play on both sides of the board and the knight is too slow.

It pays to study basic endgames :D

Still takes technique though, if I had to blitz the ending against a much stronger player I might even lose heh :)  But yes, it's a completely winning position for white as long as he doesn't screw it up :)

dalephilly wrote:

I suggest you set up the position on a chess board and go through it, it will help you.  There really is no way for you to hold the position, and it will help you improve at tactics if you practice positions like this.  I'll post a diagram to demonstrate how white can win following your suggested move, Qg5.


In that final position white is not winning, Kc7 and I don't see what's next.

4.Rf8+ does the trick though :)

Noobiest wrote:
AnthonyCG wrote:

It was extremely unsportsmanlike for him to ask you to resign regardless of the situation.

What he said.



this is a nonsense i think, maybe for stadistic porpuse this will be ok...

But if you're going to discuss wheter he should've resigned or not, then THAT's a waste of time, people have their own individual thinking proceses, and their individual experiences that build that process, so everyone has their own opinion and its ok!


A rook down is a long way back but not the end of the world...until you lose for example a couple of pawns and then I would call it a day.


Player A: Offers handshake

Player B: draw?

Player A: No, I am offering your resignation.

This is what I feel like doing sometimes.


I've got a low rating - but although there was someone here who said that they get annoyed when they play in a losing position, I once played a blitz match. I saw that my position, sanely, was losing. So I tried once last trick - I lured a rook protecting the back rank to take a hanging bishop that I placed last move. I lost because I had 0.8 seconds left, and I have a poor connection, but that move gave me a mate-in-1 from one of my rooks controlling an open file.

So I say to you - low rated people can miss things - I know I fell for a Scholar - style mate after thwarting the first two attempts. But same can happen to your opponent, so play on!


The last OTB tournament I played in was a G25/5 second delay rated quad tournament.  I won 2 out of 3 games.  In both of the games I won, I lost a bishop very early without compensation.


You should play on.


I would agree that resignation at move # 33 would seem appropriate here. I also agree that no one should demand another to resign. 

ReasonableDoubt wrote:

@the OP:  I would have expected resignation and been somewhat insulted if it was not given if that was the position (after move 9) in one of my games.  That being said, it's very rude to request someone to resign and if your opponent is going to be classless and play on in a hopeless position, it's better to just beat them instead of being mad that they haven't given up yet.  However, at lower ratings I'm not sure what goes on from won positions, so it may be better to try for a stalemate.  But to sum it up I do think that it is rude in most circumstances to not resign a hopeless position.  Whenever I see games going on with a ridiculous lead for either side, it makes me think of the infamous Black Knight from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail - some people just don't know when to call it a day and admit they've been beaten.

You make a good point, but here's the thing--at that rating, the game isn't over yet. I remember very clearly in a tournament about 13 years ago (was a 700 then), knowing my opponent had a simple 2-rooks mate in 3, and playing it out anyway. He blundered a rook and lost. That was -common- at that rating. At your rating, when someone goes down a pawn and loses all initiative, it's often enough for a win, but you're not usually insulted when they play that out a bit longer. When they lose a piece, sure. At his rating (no offense intended), a piece does not always mean the game. It usually does, but one question I ask my students is "how much material do you need, in general, to be confident of a win? A pawn? 2? A piece? More?" and the usual answer is a bit more than a piece. Usually 2 pieces or a rook, but not a minor piece. 

I've played out a piece-down game against a FM for 20-something moves until I had no ideas left, and then resigned...Partly because I didn't feel right resigning before move 10, partly because he was making every move instantly, and partly because I wanted to try to find compensation. When I was out of things to try, and knew I had nothing left to play for, that was the time to resign.


You got dominated - BUT - a 1413 player certainly has no business demanding that you resign.  My own metric is 'if we switched places, could I easily win against a solid player in this position?', if the answer is yes - I resign.


By move 36, yes, you should have resigned. But it was very rude of your opponent to say, " you are wasting my time." 


I am feeling guilty about my last post because I am in a game now where I am sure my opponent thinks I should resign! (I will, Vince, soon!)