Hey kids! Learn how to resign!

No one is forced to resign. If you are in a winning position - just win then, and if your opponent has 1 hour left on his clock and waits till it runs out - just wait then.

You can both learn from playing til the end, and maybe take a unexpected win or end up in stalemate or draw.

 

Today I (ranked 800) had a bishop and knight vs him having only his king. He resigned and I won. Happily for me beacuse I do not know how to mate with that material. I tried it afterwards against the computer and it was a draw beacuse of 50 move rule. If he had stayed it woud have been a draw.

Well, 800s blunder sometimes like me lol. Computer looks for the best move, and blunders are rare.

Well, sometimes GM's do not resign!

 

This is a cool video of a GM trying to checkmate with King, Bishop and Knight vs King

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY1jG04NOyc

 

 

I think that resignation is sometimes a good idea. For instance, when you have lost most of your pieces or you only have a king and a couple of pawns while the other person has a whole army bearing down upon you, then it is a good idea to resign. you know who’s going to win anyways. Just make sure that you don’t resign too hastily, unless it becomes a habit. If it is going bad, and you are down a piece, tough it out. Put your back agains the wall until the end or Ragnarok. Or, if you’re like me, surrender is not an option. Fight to the last breath. But, like RedGirlz said, it is your choice. There is no real bad decision unless it is totally obvious.

I refuse to resign when playing unless there is no possible way for me to win or draw. I have come back from some large deficits before.

Never resign if you don't want to. Period.

agreed

Hah, none of this posturing changes the essential argument: good chess players know when to resign. Kids and patzers don't. 

The latter should know better, but as you've all you made clear - you don't. Ger yer patzer on!

TMB

.................... ..................... ....... ............................ You're kidding, right?

If I had resigned in all of the games I was losing in just because I was losing, I'd still be 1500.

Nobody is arguing that they don't. What we are saying is that you shouldn't always be resigned and you shouldn't think that you're entitled for your opponent to resign. Probably a big misunderstanding ngl

No, its not that good players know when to resign. Very high rated players know when the game is lost and they have nothing to learn from being rook rolled or something similar.

Lower rated players usually both have changes to turn the game into a win or draw if the opponent blunders, and can learn from trying to prolong the checkmate and observing the opponent. 

 

Like its kind of idiotic to resign if you had a change to draw the game or learn from it. 

52yrral I was addressing the OP.

Two days ago, Caruana was -3 vs Anand, a chess legend. According to you, Caruana should have resigned. But Caruana finally won. So in your logic Caruana is a patzer, isn't he?

 

I’m always surprised when correspondence games take less than a year.

 

Of course, 24 hours per move is blazingly fast, too. Maybe that’s why I never play it.

If you don't know how to finish a given position, don't resign, even if it seems hopeless.  Playing out losing positions teaches skills that aren't readily learned in even games - but which are of use in those games.  Better players might be annoyed, but the point of playing chess is to learn.  If you don't know how to finish yourself off, let your opponent show you how it's done.

Thank you chesstenor2018

Sexual-harassment much?

Hey, where's Dave?

wha