eric you fucking die little bitch,,its a statement of fact now
Never give up. Never, never, never, never, give up.
Unless you really have to go to the bathroom badly enough. Then I'd toss the game. What the heck.
Would it bother you if an opponent plays on stubbornly despite significant material disadvantage? How (in terms of material disadvantage) would you draw the line between being stubborn and simply being disrespectful?If I play against a child, I would not mind playing until mate. But I expect an acquaintance of similar strength in chess to resign when it's clear that s/he has a losing position.
In the last round of the last tournament I played, I was actually down a piece (a knight for a pawn) but still won the game! My position is supposed to be lost, but then I found a way to trick my opponent on the endgame (!) by making the position as technically difficult as possible: prevented his king from coming out, forced his pieces to awkward positions, and then with the help of bluff, created a passed pawn through tactical combination that gradually sealed his coffin.
You see, sometimes in a winning position we becomes impatient and expect our opponent to capitulate. That's what I am hoping for on that game, bore him with frustrations and call for a war of attrition. As long as there is a shade of hope, I don't think it is time to give-up nor it wrong or disrespectful to continue not unless perhaps in an absolutely lost position. But even then, it’s a decision that our opponent has to make not ours. The battle does not only take place on the 64 squares of the board...
The way I see it is if you have a material advantage you should win. If you cant checkmate your opponent thats on you. Your opponent should play till the very end, the bitter end.
I agree. If you're playing a similarly rated player, they have the same approximate chances to blunder or make mistakes that you do. So why not keep playing as strongly as you can, and maybe they will blunder and you'll be back in the game?
Below the "master" level, Chess doesn't have to be "whoever blunders first resigns", nor should it be. In fact I would argue that by continuing to play, you are "exercising" your chess mind by playing with a disadvantage and possibly improving your game for the next time.
well said, i lost my Queen early, in one game , and it really got to me, so i decided to play on, in the end i won, never give up...make them prove their material superiority...THIS IS SPARTA!!! Sorry folks, got a bit carried away.
I see things this way. Chess has strict rules about time to move and how someone actually loses a game.
Personally I resign when the win becomes simple, or ifI blunder a piece AND SO have a really horrible position, but I whole-heartedly support the principle that players can do whatever they like as long as they follow the rules! If someone wamts to fight on and hope, or fight on to learn, then I respect that and set myself the task of winning as cleanly as possible. It's all grist for the mill....
On a slight tangent, I think training yourself to be stubborn and resisting is something that a LOT of players around 1500-1700 need to practice (in NON-LOST games)...so many helpfully exchange down to lost endgames, or risk all on a tempting move that has a clear (but perhaps not obvious) refutation. Dig in! Work hard! Grit your teeth and fight! Can you imagine Fischer hurrying to resign when he wanted to play on so that a tournament wouldn't be held up? Korchnoi? Kasparov? NO really good player sells themself short...they all look out for themselces first when they play.
You basing this all on what pecentage of chess players? Believe you me, my brother is friggin smart, but he is not a chess master. But I'll bet you real money he is as smart, or smarter than all of them.
Also, my cousin, way smarter than I am. When he was a young teen, and I only 10 or so, played him to a draw. A friend I had ten years ago, college educated, computer guru, I beat him so bad at chess he refused to play me again.
Me, I'm a high school drop out with my GED, oilfield worker.
Intelect plays a role, for sure ... to the top .O00000001% of chess players. To the rest of us it is how much we want to put into it.
Chess is not a game of "superior intellectual level"
Perhaps you can quantify this because this is the debate between Intelligence and chess expertise which still rages on. Let me suggest that there can be no doubt chess places great intellectual demands on players, therefore the intellectual level plays a role. Its interesting that psychometric studies researching the relation between intelligence and the expertise level show different results in children and in adults. There is a test based on the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model (BIS) which is measuring four operational abilities (processing speed, memory, creativity, information processing capacity) which shows that chess players with a significant higher IQs show a higher processing speed. Therefor the intellectual level of players plays a role.
Where does this notion come from that playing on in a lost position is "disrespectful"? It may be silly, absurdly optimistic, unrealistic or any number of things, but it is not disrespectful.
Chess is not a game of "superior intellectual level"
...but surely chess isn't a no-brainer game, for morons or for idiots.
Sometimes, when the game is critical to my standings in the tournament, I do get upset and play on. I usually don't.
I know a kid who is about 11 years old in my chess club. He always resigns. (Not that common actually)