That is a tough question. When should you resign? Some people hate resigning, but in some situations, you must know that you will lose. So what do you believe is the proper situation to resign? I personally think..
Down a rook or more in pointsOpponent has way to many passed pawnsYou are in an bad position tacticallythats when i resign
When i am down material and my opponent has shown he knows what he's doing. Usually. I did resign against a player 500 pts above m, only to find out the move he was going to play would draw. When I pointed it out to him, he set the position up and we played it out 15 times, before I finally screwed up and lost.
I suppose this illustrates one of my points better than anything I could have come up with. It's only when when we get the notion that an opponent is obliged to share our notion of when to resign that someone who's done nothing more than play the game that both agreed to play becomes "some bozo".
How many games in Corus were played until mate? In open events that I play I never see anyone make a titlked player play until mate, when they see their position is hopeless and its just a matter of time they resign. Perhaps among beginners its common to play until mate but I have had even unrated players resign against me when clearly lost. Its pretty obvious to me who the serious players are here and who the bozos are . If the shoe fits......wear it.
I think the only time you shouldn't resign in a lost position is if the mate is obviosuly soon and if it's obviously clever and unique and fun in some way. And even then you should give your opponent an indication that you're letting them have a bit of fun.
I know I hate to have my best ideas only be seen in analysis, sometimes it's worth seeing it on the board. But again, it has to be nearly immediate. No matter how good an idea it is, no one wants to sit and play long when there's clearly no point.
Do I know when to resign? Yes, usually about 4 or 5 moves in. :)
I don't resign until there is no more hope for a counterattack. Any chance to bring the fight to the other guy's camp could result in a blunder from him. I've won plenty of games where I was 2 pawns behind. If your opponent can win with such a small advantage, you'll want him to prove it.
No, I do not know when to resign.
If I'm playing a non-blitz (non-bullet) game, I'll resign if I blunder a piece in an even game... However, in a blitz, even If blunder the queen, I'll try to get into a stalemate situation by kamikazing my pieces and pawns until I have only the bare king left... It rarely works, but when it does, it makes it worthwhile.
Do YOU know when to resign?
An obvious answer is: When it is your turn!
Is that a joke? I answered it in a joking way. But there is some sense in that answer. It depends of the kind of game you are playing. If it is a blitz game it is in fact a good idea to resign only when it is your turn and NOT after you have moved. An example to illustrate what I mean: I played a blitz game where I put my queen at a place where my opponent could just take it with his queen. I then saw the blunder and pressed the resignation button right away. BUT my opponent had just pressed his move button a fraction of a second before I pressed the resignation button, so that I saw his move immediatly after I resigned. He moved a knight and now I could take HIS queen for free, if it wasn't for the fact that I had just pressed the resignation button. So in blitz games the answer is not a joke: You resign when it is your turn.
But in on-line games (like correspondence chess) or in over the board games I won't make a set rule as to when to resign in regards to who's turn it is. I will just say that in most cases it will be when it is my turn. It will usually be at a point where the game is over, even it is technically not over since you can continue moving the pieces in a situation where you can really find no sensible way of doing anything, so the fight is finished.
Thus the answer to the question "Do YOU know when to resign?" becomes: Yes, when the result of the fight is a loss and I find no further fight available, that would include that there is no "time trouble fight" available in the situation. But I won't always know. If there is doubt about whether to resign then I would continue.
One's mood can play a big role, especially in a situation where you had a winning position and blundered the advantage away into a lost position, in which case you could be emotionally disturbed and could play out several moves while you calm down or before you face the fact. Other times you resign right away is such a situation without a proper evaluation of the position.
Also: If there is just a couple of moves left before a check mate I will often let the opponent perform the mate.
I usually resign after I've played a move without thinking and naturally, it turns out to just hang a piece. I've also struggled to convert wins and appreciated my opponents playing on in these cases.
I just played a game where I was down R+Ps Vs. R+N+Ps, and thought I probably should resign here. A couple of minutes later I was down one pawn in a king and pawn endgame, and thought I probably should resign here. My opponent missed a couple of winning moves and ended up with my king in front of his rook pawn. I offered a draw, and let him know how he could have finished me off.
I hate to resign, but it is part of the game. We're not always winning, for me, I will resign if I think I'm not interested in the game, and sometimes I went to losing.
When I have no counterplay, and am just a punching bag.
Oh wait, then I would be resigning in EVERY game...
Make something out of nothing to prepare a counterattack.
[COMMENT RESIGNED HERE]
Resign when YOU know you are hopelessly lost and can't learn anything from the position. Example, If I am playing a (total) newbie I don't expect him to resign even if I am up say, a queen and a rook, as they can learn by seeing how I finish the game the most efficient way to win.
However say I am up a rook in the endgame against an 1800 player. I do expect him to resign and would consider it rude if he spent a lot of time trying to fight the position,as he isn't learning anything except how to excessively prolong the game.
Never surrender ! LOL
I do resign many times, for example when I feel that I cannot play properly. Like today :D
But sometimes, feeling confidence, I do play even after losing Q+R, like in game bellow :
I think its stupid to say to yourself that you will resign if you are down a rook. This means that you will resign if you are down a rook, but you can try a last tactical trick, that will work if he's in a hurry, and you wont resign if your down a knight or bishop in an endgame like the one on the diagram?
I resign when i have a hopeless position, with no last tricks to try.
The answer to this is different depending on how strong a player you are and what level your opponent is at. Generally, the lower level the game the slower you should be to resign. Something that would be decisive in a master's game might be frittered away by a poor player like me. In low level play dramatic reversals can sometimes happen, as do outright tactical errors. Even if badly behind make the position as sharp and complicated as possible, create threats in multiple parts of the board, and once in a while the other guy will screw up and let you steal it. Not that often, but always fight it out. I generally don't resign until I can see a forced win, either a forced mate or a pawn promotion I can't stop, etc.
I will admit, that if it is early in the game and I have made an outright tactical blunder (dropped a rook with no compensation, or something equally stupid) I will usually just call a Mulligan, resign, and ask if they want another game.
general CC ettiquite at the higher levels (1800+ i'd say) usually means resigning if you hang a piece accidentally.
Either way though, resign once you know your game is lost.
edit - there are two 'exceptions' in my books..
1- Don't stall and hope for a time out, don't stall at all for that matter.
2- If the game is drawn and your opponent offers, accept it.. playing on is frustrating, time wasting, and unfair (being as in real life a tournament director would force the draw).
I'm not sure about the 2nd one. A long while back I played out a game where we each had a rook left. He declined a draw several times and we had about another 50/60 moves and then I clumsily let him win my rook.
You could say it was desperate and perhaps he was lacking in sportsmanship, bascially outlasting me but he won so I couldn't really complain. Time also wasn't an issue.
You can claim a draw once 50 moves have passed without a piece being captured and no pawn moves, whether your opponent likes it or not.
I never resign, leaving it for cowards!