Just keep doing what you're doing. Natural development will cause you to resign earlier, when the time is right.
Etiquette Question - Go for Stalemate or Resign?
Sort:
Kudos on your stalemate... If you have a chance at stalemate, i think you should take it. It can be a learning experience for both people. Remember, it is the "winning" person's responsibility to pull off the win.
i can think of one situation which would be good to resign instead of stalemate or draw. This happened to me, i was playing live 10 min game and my opponent only had King, but i was low on time. Instead of making me play for the win, he resigned. He may have been able to draw if i ran out of time.
Apr 16, 2013
0
#5
At your rating level, play to the end in every game.
When you get +1700, then you can worry about when it's appropriate to resign.
If your perceived idea of your chances of saving the game motivates you to keep playing and test your opponent, then play on. For some people, having a 1% chance to save the game or less is not enough for them to play on (they figure their time is better spent elsewhere), while for others, they don't mind taking a bit of time to see if that small chance doesn't occur. Sometimes the position is really easy for the opponent to win and playing it out may only test whether or not they will hallucinate, rather than whether or not they understand the winning process.
If you think you will learn from continuing the game, then I recommend to play on.
Estragon wrote:
Resigning is voluntary at all times. There is NO "etiquette" or "unwritten rule" mandating resigning at any point.
The idea that there is some sort of etiquette is a myth promoted by weak and lazy players who do not wish to do the work of finishing a game where they are ahead. These are precisely the type of players you should play on against because they are most likely to make the foolish mistakes which result in stalemate.
Keep watching, I think a stalemate is unlikely and I do think he should resign by now...
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=65904996
Maybe you will make some people happy by resigning early -- personally, I am willing to fight and prove everything necessary -- I don't play chess for things to be given to me. If I get a quick point, well, whatever, but above all I'm concerned about playing well and earning my points, which is somewhat independent of my opponent.
To demonstrate this independence, if someone resigns to me a piece down considering the game "100% lost" or something, my satisfaction will depend in part on what I personally think I would have been able to do. If I feel like I only had a 95% chance of winning the game, I will still feel like I have only 95% proven to myself I would win the game, regardless of what my opponent may have been convinced of.
Scottrf, just make use of your extra material, don't hallucinate or make a mistake you would normally not make -- simple as that. Your opponent could easily think you are extremely likely to win -- all he needs is confirmation that you are mentally present, and in the meantime he'll try to defend.
I view a position like that as winning, provided that I play well within my normal range of skill. It's not quite the same thing as the game actually being over (similar, but not the same thing), but it's almost as good and I'll hopefully take advantage of the opportunity.
It's winning providing you know how the pieces move. I suppose I could play h3 to remove back rank threats if I thought that would end it, but the last one went to mate, so I presume this will.
Scottrf wrote:
Estragon wrote:
Resigning is voluntary at all times. There is NO "etiquette" or "unwritten rule" mandating resigning at any point.
The idea that there is some sort of etiquette is a myth promoted by weak and lazy players who do not wish to do the work of finishing a game where they are ahead. These are precisely the type of players you should play on against because they are most likely to make the foolish mistakes which result in stalemate.
Keep watching, I think a stalemate is unlikely and I do think he should resign by now...
yes but it hurts himself, i mean in blitz you can make that joke, but in online chess? i mean everyday looking at a losing position how fun can that be??
Apr 16, 2013
0
#13
The answer is it depends. If you are truly trying to fight to the bitter end, looking for a stalemate, and get mated, fine.
What I personally find unethical, and anybody that does this has their head shoved up their own butt, is when you clearly and plainly see that you are being mated in 1 move, and you have say, 17 minutes left on the clock, and you sit there and stall until either the clock hits 2 seconds and then move or resign, or simply sit there an let the clock run out.
If you want to make the move, and make your opponent make his move, fine. But don't be an a$$ about it and stall for ever and a day.
Let me give you a fine example. I played in the 2006 West Virginia State Championship (it was open to out-of-staters), and there was one player that thought he was all that. He'd observe what openings you played, etc. I had only 1 White prior to facing this jerk (his name is "Marvin Barker"), and he saw that I was playing 1.f4. He knows he's going to face me in the first game of the 3rd and final day. So he sees that I played the Antoshin in round 2, having Black the other 3 rounds, and White both games the final day. What he didn't know what I played just about every line in 1.f4 except the reversed Leningrad. I switched up on him, and he got pissed on move 23 when he was clearly lost. Time control was 35 moves in 90 minutes, then sudden death in 60. He had 37 minutes left to get to move 35. He stalls, and stalls, and stalls. He's about to drop a full piece. About 15 minutes in, he goes to the board, writes in 1 for White (me), and 0 for Black. He never acknowledged resignation. I spoke to the TD, and the TD told him to shape up basically. He erases the pairing sheet, and sits down, and resigns with under 2 minutes left, just sat there and stalled for no good reason. He didn't even focus on the position, looking for a defense. He walked around the room, sat with clearly no thinking involved, etc.
I run into him the following year at the 2007 Southwest Virginia Open. He tells the director not to pair him against me or he will kill me.
So yes, feel free to play it out to the mate, but don't ever do what this d0uche did!
It's simply a position where you can pretty easily make use of the material advantage. Having a mate in 1 would be even better, but if I can still win in 30 moves while staying mentally present I'll take what I can get and embrace it for what it is. Winning that position would be like doing some relaxing simple multiplication problems -- again not as good as having mate in 1, but still pretty good.
Well, that didn't last long...
What might really be a waste of time is if in a best of 3 match I lost the first two games and demanded to play the last one because the set of 3 wasn't completed. Most people view that as the same thing as playing on down a few queens, but I don't because you're still completing a task when you are up two queens that relies on your brain not to hallucinate too much. The same is not true for anything that happens after the first two losses of the 3 game match. Being up two queens is a very strong means to an end, but still not quite the end itself.
ThrillerFan wrote:
The answer is it depends. If you are truly trying to fight to the bitter end, looking for a stalemate, and get mated, fine.
What I personally find unethical, and anybody that does this has their head shoved up their own butt, is when you clearly and plainly see that you are being mated in 1 move, and you have say, 17 minutes left on the clock, and you sit there and stall until either the clock hits 2 seconds and then move or resign, or simply sit there an let the clock run out.
If you want to make the move, and make your opponent make his move, fine. But don't be an a$$ about it and stall for ever and a day.
Let me give you a fine example. I played in the 2006 West Virginia State Championship (it was open to out-of-staters), and there was one player that thought he was all that. He'd observe what openings you played, etc. I had only 1 White prior to facing this jerk (his name is "Marvin Barker"), and he saw that I was playing 1.f4. He knows he's going to face me in the first game of the 3rd and final day. So he sees that I played the Antoshin in round 2, having Black the other 3 rounds, and White both games the final day. What he didn't know what I played just about every line in 1.f4 except the reversed Leningrad. I switched up on him, and he got pissed on move 23 when he was clearly lost. Time control was 35 moves in 90 minutes, then sudden death in 60. He had 37 minutes left to get to move 35. He stalls, and stalls, and stalls. He's about to drop a full piece. About 15 minutes in, he goes to the board, writes in 1 for White (me), and 0 for Black. He never acknowledged resignation. I spoke to the TD, and the TD told him to shape up basically. He erases the pairing sheet, and sits down, and resigns with under 2 minutes left, just sat there and stalled for no good reason. He didn't even focus on the position, looking for a defense. He walked around the room, sat with clearly no thinking involved, etc.
I run into him the following year at the 2007 Southwest Virginia Open. He tells the director not to pair him against me or he will kill me.
So yes, feel free to play it out to the mate, but don't ever do what this d0uche did!
i hate that too, i mean i find it in internet already annoying, even though luckily i havent encountered in a long time, BUT I TRUELY WOULD NEVER HAD BELIEVED THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE GUTS TO DO SOMETHING THAT SHAMELESS IN REAL LIFe.
thrillerfan i really believed that was something pure internet chess related.
Apr 16, 2013
0
#19
If I am having no fun from the game, and I am down (like blundering the Queen) and down in time, I resign. I am an old time player, and not a blitzy one, and thus lose with a good position quite a lot.
What I will do, however, to get a lot of satisfaction, is to look for a sacrifice with which to get a repetition of moves. That is often more fun than a win.
First, I just want to say that I am new here like this site.
I have read posts about when to resign and I get that, but what about a situation, where your chances are not looking very good for you where you will should by all rights lose your opponent has Q,R,R, & N to your two rooks, but you think you have a shot at stalemate?
In the end, I manage to capture his rooks and queen and was off one step from stopping a pawn promotion to queen.
I was going to resign at that point, but then thought, maybe I can force a stalemate. If anything, it would be a good learning experience.
I managed to pull off a stalemate with only my King vs a Queen, King and Knight.
So where do you draw the line and decide to resign or fight for the stalemate?
Had I resigned, I would not have had that experience of working to a stalemate which sure beats a loss, especially against those pieces. I also thought I had decent chance to get to a stalemate.
To put things into perspective, I am a beginner and have a lot to learn.