My Opinion About Resignation

Chess is a game. If the game is no longer enjoyable, the I quit.

I have an opinion about why I resign. I do not force my views on others.

I see where you're coming from. Maybe cowardly was a harsh word.

I get that as well. But if I refrain from trash talk in chess.

Resigning in a lost position is the accepted way to end the game. If you do want to fight to the bitter end, thats fine.

Abandoning in any position is cowardly.

Resignation in many cases avoids time redundancies in a student's learning curve, because dead-lost positions happen after negative feedback was already aquired for a certain mistake. There are more productive ways to play and improve.

Whiteknight68, ionalionova and everyone else you all of you make great points of resignation. 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰

It saves time

If a player really wants to LEARN chess, then he should learn how and when to resign.

The logic goes like this:

Nobody has an infinite amout of time to devote to learning and improving. Most of us only have a rather limited budget of time instead. So if you are losing horribly, you have to ask yourself: will I learn more by continuing to play out this Queen-down endgame? Or by resigning, starting a new game and exploring a new path?

Balanced against this is the danger of perhaps resigning too early, in a position where you might have continued to offer stubborn resistance. My own rule-of-thumb is that if I can already clearly see how I would win this game if I were in my opponent's shoes, then I'll resign.

Resignation is something you see in no other game. Why is it in chess? I would not be surprised if this originally came from the extent of time that classical chess takes. It was possibly a compromise for people who liked quicker chess. Do we know when and why resignation started?

One day, I was playing chess and blundered my rook cuz of a fork. I was gonna resign but the opponent blundered his or her queen. But I pressed the resign button without seeing that move.

This is a message to all chess players "If you have a winning position, don't get too over confident and start playing a carelessly. You don't want to accidently make a bad move."

I was in Reno, Nevada this past April for a tournament. I watched as a IM kid play on against a GM in a KR vs. K end game. If by the time you're an IM and think you need to play on with a lone King against a GM with no time trouble issues you lack maturity. And yes its disrespectful but you have a right to play on.

Nobody cares what your opinion is. If it is clearly losing with no possible deception or recourse, I resign, and I'm no coward. You don't like the fact that I didn't allow you to execute your mate in 13? Tough bleep!

hi

Thrillerfan: Thank you for your strong comeback and advice. I'll take your word for it of course. 😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉

Makki42: I don't expect anyone to care. 😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐

Bartman, knowing when to quit and apply one's resources to something else is the most under appreciated skill people can possess. Societies like to celebrate the victor who won against long odds, consumed by an all encompassing need for finale victory. Yet what isn't mentioned is the cost the victor pays for doing so, for everyone who never gives up and finds a path to victory, there are legions of those who were destroyed by their obsession, without coming anywhere close to success. There is nuance in this topic, but as a general rule, those who claim winning is the only thing that matters and quitters are cowards lack the ability to judge what is gained by what is lost. I don't just disagree with Bartman, I think he's dangerously delusional and lacks the judgement necessary for any real responsibility; other than that he's probably ok.