We need to have some kind of class on when it is time in your game to resign and move on. When your opponent has rook bishop and 4 pawns to your lone king, and outrates you by over 225 points, that would probably be a good indication it is time to throw in the towel.
probably? unless your opponent see's a stale mate looming in the moves
Of course you're right. A few pieces down, ranked lower, no chance of a win, or even a draw.
On the other hand, I'm just starting out playing chess 'properly' (ie, a vague awareness of what's going on rather than just moving the pieces about) - so if I'm behind by a few pieces, then sometimes I wont resign; the reason why is that I want to see how my opponent actually gets those last few steps into a checkmate. I want to see the ways in which I can try to avoid the checkmate, and delay the inevitable, and how my opponent forces the situation - you never know, I might actually learn something from it that will help me down the line in a more even game I've got a chance in. If I never actually play an end game (no matter how one sided), then how am I ever going to know what to do in one?
And you never know, your opponent might be daft enough to start repeating moves...
You must always be a bit careful. I'm amazed at some of the games I got a stalemate in just by staying in the game.
Dont get me wrong i am not the least bit mad, i know it is the opponents right to play on if he is trying to learn something about the endgame i just think when someone sees there is no chance for stalemate or anything else and plays on for days just to prolong the game it is very frustrating.
Dont get me wrong i am not the least bit mad, i know it is the opponents right to play on if he is trying to learn something about the endgame i just think when someone sees there is no chance for stalemate or anything else and plays on for days just to prolong the game it is very frustrating.
It is frustrating but? those games also sharpen your game and help you to finish them promply
True, i was just venting i guess.Thanks for listening
Wow. Maybe I'm just old school. But when I was a youngster I was taught to give my opponent his due and resign when I lose a piece for no compensation. Nowadays nobody seems to think that playing every game out to mate is bad manners. Yes, I suppose there is always a 1 in 10 or a 1 in 100 chance that my opponent will blunder back, depending on his strength. But is that chance of winning or drawing really worth the insult?
And are you people really suggesting that I am sharpening my game by playing out king and rook vs king?
You could also make a point that if you want ostudy endgames that bad , buy a book and actually study them in your own time , instead of wasting your opponents if its clear that a win is inevitable
| I wonder what the rules of chess say about the topic...... |
i always try to play until the end, for the sake of learning engames, and I'll tell the other player as much.
I'll also tell them that they have the advantage, and that the onus is on them to mate me. You'd be suprised how many people slip up under that kind of pressure!
I agree that at a certain level of expertise, the correct and gentlemanly move is to resign, but not at my circa-1500-with-a-lot-to-learn sort of level. There's no point mimicking the grandmasters without a modicum of their talent and experience.
I was reading the section of the rules today that said the object of the game is to win a piece....
Resigning is something you do for yourself, not for your opponent. I resign when the game is no longer interesting and a loss is inevitable. If I don't know the winning technique from my opponent's superior position, why would I resign? On the other hand, if I don't feel like there is any chance for me to outplay my opponent (i.e., make a comeback), then how boring is that? Time to resign.
We need to have some kind of class on when it is time in your game to resign and move on. When your opponent has rook bishop and 4 pawns to your lone king, and outrates you by over 225 points, that would probably be a good indication it is time to throw in the towel.
probably? unless your opponent see's a stale mate looming in the moves
That would still be very poor sportsmanship. Making someone rated higher than you finish a clearly won game will be poor sportsmanship no matter how many possible stalemates there are. A lone King can't force stalemate, so playing for a stalemate would be similar to saying "Despite getting me to this point, I think you are still stupid enough to blunder into a draw."
If erik's opinion is worth only 2 cents.. i shudder to think what mine would be worth...
But here goes anyway.
I think Loomis hit the nail on the head. While I suppose there is something to be said for courtesy, the players enjoyment or educational value is why they are playing chess. Resign for yourself, not because you are afraid your opponent will be angry.
But we must also realize that there may be consequences to this. If Player A has a won position and the result becomes a foregone conclusion and the game becomes boring to him... and Player B plays on because it is still unclear to him that he is lost.. or how Player A will win, then Player B is probably playing somebody way out of his league. Player A will probably not agree to further games after that.
If weaker players want to continue to play stronger players, they will learn to resign positions once it becomes hopeless. Otherwise, they will find it increasingly difficult to find people to play with them.
If erik's opinion is worth only 2 cents.. i shudder to think what mine would be worth...
But here goes anyway.
I think Loomis hit the nail on the head. While I suppose there is something to be said for courtesy, the players enjoyment or educational value is why they are playing chess. Resign for yourself, not because you are afraid your opponent will be angry.
But we must also realize that there may be consequences to this. If Player A has a won position and the result becomes a foregone conclusion and the game becomes boring to him... and Player B plays on because it is still unclear to him that he is lost.. or how Player A will win, then Player B is probably playing somebody way out of his league. Player A will probably not agree to further games after that.
If weaker players want to continue to play stronger players, they will learn to resign positions once it becomes hopeless. Otherwise, they will find it increasingly difficult to find people to play with them.
Alright, my fraction of a cent:
I think Loomis missed the nail completely (probably got his finger). This thread is discussing class. Unless you are playing your computer (where this won't even matter), chess is a social game. Resigning only when you feel like it (lost, bored, etc.) completely ignores the rules of sportsmanship we are discussing, as well as the opponent's feelings. You agree that this has negative implications, but only so far as it prevents a player from getting what he himself wants in the future! That seems pretty selfish to me. What about paying attention to the polite customs of chess simply for your opponent's feelings? You do not hold the door open for someone because you are afraid they will get mad if you don't. You do it just for common courtesy. This is how I think we should also approach chess. When you shake hands before a game, you are not just committing yourself to following the rules of the game, but also to some form of social interaction with that person for the next however long. For this reason alone, we should conduct ourselves with class and respect our opponents. This means paying attention to the customs of the game, which includes resigning clearly lost positions.
We need to have some kind of class on when it is time in your game to resign and move on. When your opponent has rook bishop and 4 pawns to your lone king, and outrates you by over 225 points, that would probably be a good indication it is time to throw in the towel.