In my experience playing many live blitz games, one should never resign. A good 30% of my games I win because of either of a comback (which even surprises me), opponent runs out of time, or opponent blunders. Even in a very hopeless position I find it useful to try and play it out to a draw until mate.
Do YOU know when to resign?
Sort:
obviously not always I won in this position which was published in our local chess magazine which is read by 2000 chess players EDIT: maybe only 400.
to always to pay attention even if you think you are winning my opponent is rated around 1800 and I am rated 1435. it was 2 hours otb game
I am black and you may say I am clearly losing and many would say I should simply resign.
bobbyDK wrote:
... snip ...
I am black and you may say I am clearly losing and many would say I should simply resign.
bobbyDK ,that is a position with tactics available. Whenever there are tactics or counterplay that makes sense in a position then no player in his right mind would suggest that you resign, I would say. It would be the wrong moment. Play out the tactics and if no success then you can resign.
Whob wrote:
In my experience playing many live blitz games, one should never resign. A good 30% of my games I win because of either of a comback (which even surprises me), opponent runs out of time, or opponent blunders. Even in a very hopeless position I find it useful to try and play it out to a draw until mate.
I think that the terms "should" and "never" don't apply. If in a 3 minutes blitz game I blunder the queen in the opening, then there can be to scenarios: 1) It is a queen loss with no compensation neither in position nor in material or any other way. 2) It is a queen loss in a complicated position with lots of tactics.
Let us say that in those two cases both players have 2½ minutes left, that would be another 5 minutes game play. In scenario number 1 it would mean 5 minutes of utter boredom because of absolutely no compensation. Resigning would be more exciting and thus preferable. In scenario number 2, it would mean that an exciting game is still going on, so continuing would be preferable. Well, it always depends on the position.
When do you agree to draw?
Recently I had a opposite colored bishop ending with about 5 pawns on each side, which I considered dead drawn (and I even thought I had a slight positional disadvantage). I offered a draw, but my opponent declined, and instead pressed hard for a win.
He resigned about 20 moves later.
But maybe he was right not to accept the draw...maybe he learned a little about what not to do in drawn bishop endgames.
Resigners are losers
I do not like to resign online. It's all experience. OTB is a little different as sometimes people have places to be and you may as well just start another if time permits.
bobbyDK wrote:
obviously not always I won in this position which was published in our local chess magazine which is read by 2000 chess players EDIT: maybe only 400.
to always to pay attention even if you think you are winning my opponent is rated around 1800 and I am rated 1435. it was 2 hours otb game
I am black and you may say I am clearly losing and many would say I should simply resign.
White misplayed this position: if he plays Qxg5+, then you might consider resigning.
mostly, i resign if i know that i'm in forced checkmate in a couple of moves....
sometimes i analyze the position first, when i see and realize that my position is really bad.... i will resign..
sometimes if i'm down with a piece i'm forced to resign....
I only resign when I have better things to do than to look for a draw. Otherwise, what's to lose by playing on? Heck, I won an OTB game where I dropped a rook, since my opponent was making sissy defensive moves that allowed me to pull off a mating net.
To put it simply, a player should resign when they feel that there is nothing left to be proven by their opponent. What I mean by this is that there is no technique left to be shown, no traps to be avoided, and no purpose in continuing the game. In other words, the appropriate time to resign is when your opponent has clearly proven the win beyond any doubt.
The last three words are bolded above because in cases such as bullet chess or low level play the win is almost always in doubt no matter what the position, rendering the above invalid.
You should resign when your opponent castles, at least if your game is going like this one. I was playing white v a 2000 uscf rated player.
ouch!
And that is why you learn extremely theoretical slav lines before you try and play them 
h4 is good, but h5 is the wrong idea. I wanted to weaken the g pawn by not allowing him to play h5, but he was going to sac it anyways. Bh4 was even worse.
As for b3, I sadly tried that against the botvinnik and was crushed. I have learned those lines now so that it doesn't happen again, but I need to learn these as well 
Yeah - the worst part is that if I won I would have got a 100$ prize, and 50$ if I drew. So I naturally lose in 10 moves or so .
First you play to win- then you play for a draw-finally you play for a stalemate.then your opponent nails you to the wall.
shepi13 wrote:
Yeah - the worst part is that if I won I would have got a 100$ prize, and 50$ if I drew. So I naturally lose in 10 moves or so .
Oh boy, do I know that feeling... 
You can resign when ur seriously losing like down to king and rook and all u have is a king oir king and pawn otherwise unless its that obvious I would never resign actuall I'm very good at getting myself out of bad positions. And just because ur a rook behind does not meaN UR LOsing. As a matter of fact chess masters sometime purposely give away their queen knowing they'll have an advantage
in CC I'll usually resign if a piece down against equal opposition.in live I'll play it out a bit longer until the position is completely hopeless,you never know when your opponent might f*** up a won position.
here's a game where I came back from the dead: