No. Every 1600 player blunders. In the case of lost positions where you want to work on your game, mention it. I've done it several times and my opponents haven't taken issue-when I'm clear I'd like to play on to where the end (they win) is fairly obvious, and my intent is practice.
Of course, a blunder by the opponent at this stage can turn the game 180 degrees. At 1600, almost anything can still happen.
There is no shame in a resignation. You noticed the loss and quit, you're a fool to continue if the loss is inevitable.
This one game I played, it was a total pawn skeleton lock-down with all major and minor pieces traded off. There was no way the game could be won by the kings dancing around either side, absolute lock-down.
I offered a draw, but because he had a minute extra on the clock he declined the draw and wanted to shift the kings around for about 40 minutes for the win. I thought, you know what, if you're that desperate I'm not even going to waste my time.
Funny enough, I resigned and gave him the win, a day later he was over a 100 points behind me. Total muppet.
If you want to resign, then resign. If you want to keep playing, don't resign. There is no disrespect or shame in doing so or not.
I never resign. When my position is lost I just destroy my computer with a hammer and an ax and then I just buy a new computer for my next chessgames.
In order to beat your opponent, you need to do a few things right; one of which is finish your much-weakened opponent off. A player who doesn't resign is simply just testing his or her opponent more.
Skakmadurinn thats crazy
I never resign. When my position is lost I just destroy my computer with a hammer and an ax and then I just buy a new computer for my next chessgames.
Too risky.
Much better to nuke the entire site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
One time an opponent didn't resign even after it was king and queen vs. king and I accidently drew him. Granted, I only had about 1:30 left on my clock, but the idea still stands.
I think there's a certain satisfaction in checkmating your opponent, and so I try not to resign unless I think the checkmate will take a really long time. If I see a mate in 3, I let my opponent play out the mate in 3. Not because I hope he doesn't see it but because I think you are robbing him of something if you don't let him play out the mate he spent the whole game preparing. Playing that last move and seeing "chekmate" has a different feel to it then having your opponent resign when he feels he is fairly lost. I actually get really annoyed at GM's who resign at move 1 of a mate in 3 or mate in 2. Why not spend the extra 30 seconds to give your opponent the satisfaction of killing your king?
I know this is fairly unique to me, but this is why I prefer not to resign and every time I do I type in the chat that I think my loss would have taken a lot of time.
I think we resign for different reasons. While it might be apparent that you are just as likely to blunder as he was, it may be that this particular player had no desire to win a game or lose a game due to such colossal blunders. If I lose a rook to a player of my stature, I tend to resign. Often from embarrassment! But also, I have no need to hope he likewise errs so that I can get a pathetic win.
I actually think it's best for both parties if you NEVER resign. Never!
(Note - I resign like crazy! I wish I didn't but alas, I do...)
Never resigning allows even the losing side to:
- Learn to make the most of even totally lost positions - it's always surprising how many tricky resources can be thrown in your path
- Maintain a fighting spirit. I wish I had more of this - when I start resigning games even a little, the 'resign' move becomes part of the repertoire, which is really bad! I get into a slightly losing position and instead of thinking 'FIGHT!", I think '"well, now would be a good time to resign!"
- Even the loser can often learn from the process of going down in flames - even if you see one clear win, your opponent may surprise you with their alternative winning strategy.
I think we should never resign if we hope to improve. And man, I wish I could practice what I preach!
Again, I think we resign for different reasons, so I cannot say what is good or bad about it. I think it is a right within the game, and I think you either exercise it or you don't, and judgement from your opponent about it should not exist.
See why not to resign in these levels(1500-1750)
@Grimhelm Tell me how. See that the black king is in stalemate position.
I only resign when ABSOLUTELY lost. I kind of perversely enjoy looking for tricks and tactics in an inferior/losing position and its really satisfying to win a game from such positions. If nothing else its a good test to try to find the best move, which often is the only move to keep you in the game if you're losing, be that a stubborn defensive move or a desperate sacrifice or whatever.
In the position above yeah it is a stalemate. Fair play to black, white blundered 41.Rb7?? to allow it. Bet it felt great to see 41.Rxg3+!! and rescue the game, a better feeling than an easy win I bet. Maybe after move 38 white can resign but the idea of stalemate was in the air earlier. From moves 32-37 the black king has no square so why not let white play out the win on the off chance he doesn't see the potential stalemate. Which he didn't 1/2-1/2 nice swindle.
Daviderer, the white king can easily retreat to g6, robbing black of checks. With the movement white then gains, he releases the black king from the stalemate position (Rb6, for instance) and wins easily.
Essentially the king can loop around g6 and find safety elsewhere. As soon as the checks run out, white wins. He can get his king to d4 behind the pawn and bishop...
@Grimhelm How he can easily retreat to g6? Make a diagram or just tell me the moves.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I won to a resign last week and was frankly shocked. He blundered a rook and immediately resigned -- even though we still had queens on the board and he had center board control and a passed pawn!
I think there's a lot of pressure on this site to resign when you're down significant material but I think the decision needs to include player skills. I'd certainly expect that a blundered Rook against a GM would result in a loss but we were both mid 1500s and fully capable of making errors.
I'm playing a game right now where I ended up down a Rook but my opponent quickly blundered a B and now I'm looking at BB vs BR and I've got 6 pawns to his 3. If I'd resigned when I lost my R that would have been a mistake.
I have resigned games but only when the outcome is obvious. But it's not always obvious to me and point counts alone are not always indicitive of a loss - a passed pawn is often worth a minor piece.
I also need to work on my endgame - so I may not resign so readily just to get the experience.
So am I being inconsiderate not to resign when down material? I don't think so - especially at my level of play.