can’t handle losing 1 piece?
Sort:
Over the last couple months I have encountered many players who will resign if they are about to go down 1 piece. Is that what “rage quitting” is? How will they get better if they don’t soldier on?
17 hrs ago
0
#2
Frednonorofit wrote:
Over the last couple months I have encountered many players who will resign if they are about to go down 1 piece. Is that what “rage quitting” is? How will they get better if they don’t soldier on?
I don't think that qualifies as rage quitting. That is more likely long experience resignation
16 hrs ago
0
#3
Think it depends on the level you’re talking about - players under 1000 should probably never resign. There’s a high likelihood your opponent hangs one back, or simply doesn’t know how to convert positions, or allows you to checkmate them!
Sometimes I play my favourite chess when I’m down material, as it frees up the brain a bit; I’m already losing, so there’s no downside to taking risk.
That said, there are levels of chess and otherwise stale positions where the loss of a piece is simply too much to compensate for. Particularly in slower time controls.
Sometimes I play my favourite chess when I’m down material, as it frees up the brain a bit; I’m already losing, so there’s no downside to taking risk.
That said, there are levels of chess and otherwise stale positions where the loss of a piece is simply too much to compensate for. Particularly in slower time controls.
Would abandoning or letting time run up be better than resigning?
Playing on would be the best option, sportsmanship at least
Frednonorofit wrote:
Playing on would be the best option, sportsmanship at least
So resignation is now beyond sportsmanship
15 hrs ago
0
#7
I think back when I was like (400) - (700) I would resign when I am down two pawns or a piece or a exchange.
Now I know how to create winning chances, but weaker players might not know that or can’t do it that well. Winning a winning position is for weaker players harder, yes. But fighting back fron a loosing one also.
Therefore I resigned a lot back then.
Did I rage quit or tilted? Yes, sometimes. But playing on simply seemed highly irrational to me back then.
13 hrs ago
0
#8
A number of good comments here. Long age I knew class C players who thought an one pawn advantage was winning in a middle game. Just didn't understand how to complicate positions and just traded to endgame. I think MrChatty makes a good point in that resigning can't really be criticized. Resigning can't be considered rude.
12 hrs ago
0
#9
I just want to make sure I am understanding the OP- it's rage-quitting and poor sportsmanship to resign a game if one is down only a minor piece?
9 hrs ago
0
#11
Frednonorofit wrote:
Over the last couple months I have encountered many players who will resign if they are about to go down 1 piece. Is that what “rage quitting” is? How will they get better if they don’t soldier on?
Perhaps it's about picking one's battles and conserving energy. Who knows what the opponent is thinking? But why jump to the rage conclusion?