i GUESS mr bean shud never resign ....WHY HE IS BEAN AFTER ALL ! lol 
WHY PEOPLE RESIGN SO EASY
Sort:
Hmmm
Timothy_P wrote:
Lovechess, sorry but you should resign when you are losing - players like anand resign and are almost never checkmated.
Most of us don't compare to player like Anand. You usually lose because of a mistake and it is likely your opponent will make a mistake eventually. So it is okay to keep on playing even if your position is technically a lost one. Moreover it is good for your play to learn how to mate your opponent.
Bradypus wrote:
Timothy_P wrote:
Lovechess, sorry but you should resign when you are losing - players like anand resign and are almost never checkmated.
Most of us don't compare to player like Anand. You usually lose because of a mistake and it is likely your opponent will make a mistake eventually. So it is okay to keep on playing even if your position is technically a lost one. Moreover it is good for your play to learn how to mate your opponent.
The anand part came from where he claimed that players like anand know that pawns can become queens, implying that therefore they don't resign (lol)
[COMMENT DELETED]
i think resigning in impossible situations is a pretty fair thing to do
well at your level not resigning is ok i guess...
however once you reach a certain level then resigning becomes a reality, you know you are going to lose and you resign with grace and respect your opponent not like a couple of sore losers I know....
I think resigning is much more respectable and is basically good sportsmanship all around. people who never resign until checkmate are the people who generally piss me off...
I can't remember seeing Anand get checkmated...he almost always resigns before it happens.
It is bordering on slightly embarrassing for a GM not to resign when there is a forced mate (or forced OUCH! of any kind) as they should have seen it first...
Oct 10, 2013
0
#50
I was playing a coworker at lunch a few years back. Got distracted and hung my Queen. Just didn't see it. Then I regrouped, saw a weakness and quickly checkmated him.
If there's just no hope, I can see resigning. However, sometimes really good players resign too quickly IMO. If you have sufficient material it's possible to turn a bad position... though perhaps that's just my view because I'm not a very good player yet....
Oct 10, 2013
0
#51
This topic is a change of pace from the run of the mill "You should resign after your down a piece" discussion that usually goes on around here. Kudos. Personally I am now thinking you should never resign and here is why-
- It shows character to play out a weaker position. Go down fighting there is no reason to just give up, regardless of how well your opponent is positioned.
- If there is any doubt about your playing the game to the bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter end. Refer to the previous rule.
- The only good bitter is stout.
YersiniaPestis wrote:
This topic is a change of pace from the run of the mill "You should resign after your down a piece" discussion that usually goes on around here. Kudos. Personally I am now thinking you should never resign and here is why-
It shows character to play out a weaker position. Go down fighting there is no reason to just give up, regardless of how well your opponent is positioned. If there is any doubt about your playing the game to the bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter end. Refer to rule. The only good bitter is stout.Well, here's what I think.
1. If you want to resign early then fine, it's your choice.
2. If you want to keep playing until checkmate then fine, it's your choice.
3. If I'm playing on in a worse position, and my opponent is telling me that I should resign, then I think that's understandable, but I probably won't listen.
4. If I do resign, and my opponent gets mad and tells me I should have played on, that's when I go crazy. You got your win, and by resigning I just saved you from having to spend extra time and trouble to get the same result, so stop complaining.
Oct 10, 2013
0
#53
yes, since IQ is the ability to not only think, but evaluate and differentiate between good and bad moves within seconds rather than minutes or even more laugable days. Thus, blitz is the true indicator of a person's ability to make such decisions within minutes. It is quite analogous to computer's ram which speeds up the process of . Thus, to recapitualte bltiz players usually have hihgher IQs than their much slower correspondent chess counterparts. This is actually scientifically proven.
letsgohome wrote:
yes, since IQ is the ability to not only think, but evaluate and differentiate between good and bad moves within seconds rather than minutes or even more laugable days. Thus, blitz is the true indicator of a person's ability to make such decisions within minutes. It is quite analogous to computer's ram which speeds up the process of . Thus, to recapitualte bltiz players usually have hihgher IQs than their much slower correspondent chess counterparts. This is actually scientifically proven.
Wrong thread.
Oct 10, 2013
0
#55
chess_gg wrote:
Here's a thought...
I've always considered checkmate as killing the king. I suspect that most chess players think the same.
But, when I was just giving thought to this resign or no resign subject, the concept of the king being killed is wrong. What is actually happening is that the king is corralled. He is overpowered and has nowhere to run, no one to stave off the attack and nothing to shield him. What happens is that he is captured.
Now, when the king resigns instead of being checkmated, many players consider that that is "being a quitter" or "cowardly". Well, I would look at it more like a suicide. The king is not corralled. He still has some options (for the moment) but he lays down his life before being captured.
That's how I see it. And king, dictator, despot...look at what usually happens to them when they are captured. Mussolini, Sadam Hussein, Kadafi, etc.
I can't think of anything that Hitler did as being "right". Except, that he took his own life rather than being captured by the Russians and treated even worse than Mussolini.
In real life...and I don't know about you, this is only by view...I would NEVER allow myself to be captured in a war. I would either fight to the death or "save one bullet for myself".
Being captured in such a situation is, again...in my opinion...a worse prospect than death.
But, I am a freethinker. What you should do is up to you.
I will give you this you have a thought there, but I would argue its still never over until the bitter end. You want to suicide yourself capture does not stop that possibility if your truly dedicated to your death. The reason those people killed themselves was to avoid facing world disdain.
All rulers believe that what they do is best for their countries regardless of the consquenses to their country, and its people. Just an observation, but I think it holds true, even today. The hard part is knowing whether or not they were right.
YersiniaPestis wrote:
chess_gg wrote:
Here's a thought...
I've always considered checkmate as killing the king. I suspect that most chess players think the same.
But, when I was just giving thought to this resign or no resign subject, the concept of the king being killed is wrong. What is actually happening is that the king is corralled. He is overpowered and has nowhere to run, no one to stave off the attack and nothing to shield him. What happens is that he is captured.
Now, when the king resigns instead of being checkmated, many players consider that that is "being a quitter" or "cowardly". Well, I would look at it more like a suicide. The king is not corralled. He still has some options (for the moment) but he lays down his life before being captured.
That's how I see it. And king, dictator, despot...look at what usually happens to them when they are captured. Mussolini, Sadam Hussein, Kadafi, etc.
I can't think of anything that Hitler did as being "right". Except, that he took his own life rather than being captured by the Russians and treated even worse than Mussolini.
In real life...and I don't know about you, this is only by view...I would NEVER allow myself to be captured in a war. I would either fight to the death or "save one bullet for myself".
Being captured in such a situation is, again...in my opinion...a worse prospect than death.
But, I am a freethinker. What you should do is up to you.
I will give you this you have a thought there, but I would argue its still never over until the bitter end. You want to suicide yourself capture does not stop that possibility if your truly dedicated to your death. The reason those people killed themselves was to avoid facing world disdain.
All rulers believe that what they do is best for their countries regardless of the consquenses to their country, and its people. Just an observation, but I think it holds true, even today. The hard part is knowing whether or not they were right.
Can we get back on track here?
Oct 10, 2013
0
#57
@ Macer I was being facetious with the whole list thing. Please forgive me for not making that clearer. Certainly do or do not play to whatever standards your allowed by whom you play. Chess rules state that resignations are acceptable, so they are, if you want to change the rules then it seems to me that you must get your opponent to agree to that prior to the game being played. After you have started the game you can not then say to your opponent btw you have to resign if your down a certain number of material points to me.
Oct 10, 2013
0
#58
Youtube Gundam unicorn ep 6 trailer. Then click the 43 second one. Your welcome brah
letsgohome wrote:
yes, since IQ is the ability to not only think, but evaluate and differentiate between good and bad moves within seconds rather than minutes or even more laugable days. Thus, blitz is the true indicator of a person's ability to make such decisions within minutes. It is quite analogous to computer's ram which speeds up the process of . Thus, to recapitualte bltiz players usually have hihgher IQs than their much slower correspondent chess counterparts. This is actually scientifically proven.
Oct 10, 2013
0
#60
VildanDrpljanin wrote:
letsgohome wrote:
yes, since IQ is the ability to not only think, but evaluate and differentiate between good and bad moves within seconds rather than minutes or even more laugable days. Thus, blitz is the true indicator of a person's ability to make such decisions within minutes. It is quite analogous to computer's ram which speeds up the process of . Thus, to recapitualte bltiz players usually have hihgher IQs than their much slower correspondent chess counterparts. This is actually scientifically proven.
cool story brah
In a tournament game, if I am a piece down with no compensation I will surely resign. As long as my opponent is a decent player who knows how to convert an extra piece advantage, why bother? In a friendly game, even if I go a pawn down with no compensation I will resign, since I don't find the need to struggle to draw from a worse position if no "prize" is involved.