A Question of Honor

As you will be stronger player, you will know when to resign, and when playing on. This resign problem is everywhere, I am for example playing an online game, where we both have 4 pawns, and I have a rook. Why does not my opponent resign? He thinks that I can't win that? No, he is simply just a lower rated player, who does not know when to resign. Every player has stis stage of his chess career I think, when he plays until mate. (even if the position is K+Q vs K.) But everybody becomes better, they will realize that is was a foolish thing that they did not resign in the past at certain positions. So they will resign from that time if they have to.There is other game, in that there are some pieces on the board, but I have Queen against a rook, and that is still going on...

"Piece down in a symmetrical position, it's probably over. Piece down in a muddy position with lots of imbalances where there may be promotions it may be worth carrying on."

It is a very good definition.

"So you lost a piece, why not train your defensive skills and see how you can make it the most difficult."

You should not "train" your defensive skills with a piece down. You cannot protect your position, if you are a piece down. Even if your opponent can break through your defence, he will simply exchange pieces, and he will have an extra piece and you will have nothing. So similar position should be played, if you have a good counterplay, if you have no, then just resign.

cool Nimz, you got the best of both worlds there, it was a funny story when you mentioned it before. but you did the right thing nonetheless.

I usually resign only when I know that I literally have no chances left at all.

Otherwise, even in a very tough position, you still have hopes for a miracle or a stalemate. It has happened to me that I am in a horrible position, but at the end I end up drawing or even winning.

However when you have a king and a pawn, and your opponent has a queen and a rook, well obviously there is no point in playing anymore, because unless your opponent has a heart attack at that moment or his Internet goes down, it is impossible that you can win.

However in a tournament, if you are in a really bad bad bad position, then you must resign, simply to not make wait unecessarily the rest of the players in the tourney.

For me, it's not a question of honour at all; I am a new player, so even in a losing position I will generally play on. Not out of spite, but to 1) watch and learn from my opponent's play, 2) practise my defensive play, and 3) hope that my opponent will make a mistake that I can exploit and claim a draw, or even a win.

So u have Q vs. Q/r . U blunder w/ Q. pawn grabbing and a cowboy check. He has  QxQ with u getting nothing in return---he did not hang the Q., u did.He probably was mad when he missed QxQ--but for a1900 rated player to say "there's more to the game then what's on the board ", meaning wait for your opponent too out-blunder u seems a little silly.

Unless he is cheating (using computer or asking for advice), it looks to me a good indication.

Time pressure is rare in standard (long) games. For most of the games I play in correspondance (which are not many, I admit) I use between 1 and 5 min/move or maybe 15 min on critical lines, but as a whole, I probably do not go over 2h for the whole game.

That's not a good indication of rapid / blitz rating, sure, but many people do not play that.

by saying there is more to chess than what is on the board i mean psychology plays a large part alot of the time. when people are winning and it seems as there are no tactics on the board they stop paying much attention to the board sometimes (mostly in blitz where you don't want to throw away time for nothing) you just have to throw the are you paying attention trick at them before you resign.i was fully aware that i was blundering the queen but from my knowledge of how he was thinking i knew it was my best practical chance to win. you can have whatever opinion you want about how i played but it means absolute jack since it worked.

I think it's safe to assume he was talking about his chess.com rating? Where do you see him mention anyting about an OTB rating?

Not if you're bad at time management... and not if you're playing in the candidates tournament it seems!

Listen to me. This isn't a debate. This is not even a question. 

IN CHESS, you never resign. Ever. I don't care if you, your mother and every single person watching can see the forced mate in 2, you don't resign. Make your opponent checkmate you. 

It's not a question of honor, it's a matter of fact. CAN they do it(in time?)? DO they see it? WILL they blunder?

I never resigned ONCE in my life in tournament play. There is always a chance they will either mess up or not see what you think you see. Never resign.

Anybody here who thinks that you're being a scumbag by not resigning is just wrong. Don't listen to their argument. Don't entertain them with reason. It doesn't matter what they think. They are wrong, I am right.

You play to the end. The end is Checkmate or Stalemate. Resigning is cheating your opponent as well. You're denying them endgame practice, if you want to look at it from a different perspective. In a way, resigning is a way of slapping them in the face. It's like, "Oh you see that you're beat but you didn't see yourself getting beat before this position and now you've got the audacity to act like you don't need to see how it ends?" 

Screw that. Make them beat you. Never tip.

gg 

The people that believe you should resign are the same people who, when they're already beat, say shit like "Ohh who didn't see THAT move coming!"  or  "Obviously I knew you were going to do that next."  

It's like, "Oh you saw it coming? Why didn't you stop me then?"

What a tool.

While everyone has their own opinions and preferences, and I'm sure we will not get a single unanimous consensus among the chess.com community on this subject, I believe this gentleman may have presented my own sentiments perfectly ... although I have never thought to express them in these terms.

Although I'm not going to lie ... I do try and weasel out a stalemate on occasion, which I suppose would be the exception to my own personal rule.

I expressed myself wrongly : time pressure is less important than it is in rapid play. Again, I guess the total thinking time used during correspondance games matches more or less the time standard of long games for most people.

In Standard correspondence games computers are permitted,of course.

It is then the question how you use the engine. It turns out it is not an easy task, and most of us would be surprised how they would be crashed by an IGM in corrsepondence chess. To be not misunderstood, it is not about the processor or about the program. It is about the interaction, the 'dialogue' one leads with the engine. Most of all, only a player who knows chess very well is able to select the right questions for the engine, thus leading to a tandem 'machine-human' that is sooo much superior than the two separated.

When I feel I'm lost, I tend to resign early. However, I do not mind that when I'm winning the opponent goes on and on. It's so much fun!...

It's fun if it's a smallish advantage and takes technique, when your opponent is playing one move every 3 days even when you've set up conditionals it's annoying.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=65904994

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=65904996

 You don't have a clock next to you when you are watching chess videos, reading an article/book, or studying some endgame or opening, do you? Do you consider those activities a waste of study time? 

I suppose it's a matter of taste whether or not you play it, but correspondance chess is not supposed to simulate sitting down at a board with a clock next to you. It's just a different way of playing. Maybe you should try it and see if you like it before you pass judgement?

I like the pressure.