Never Ever Resign!

I should have resigned in this game that I messed up, but I thought, what the heck, I'll try to win White's queen with a sneaky tactic and turn the game around. I set the trap on 22...Qb8 (!?). My opponent missed the discovered attack/check idea and played 23.Ng5 (??).

So, I played 23...Bxf2+ (!!), 24.Rxf2, 24...QxQb5 (!).

Did you ever get the itch to keep going and see if you could turn one around? This was the first time that I ever tried to do it after being down a full piece.

When I first saw this thread come up, I thought the title was "Nobody Ever Resigns!" lol

Anyway, yes your trap did work.  What I'm wondering though is why you didn't play 17... Ke7.

Also, you were down a full rook (not a piece).

I would never resign at that rating range because I'm a piece down - especially if it was a fast time control. You can win games material down against players rated 2000, as long as it's not a long time control.

your lucky hes rated 1050...game would be hopeless for you otherwise...the annotations are a little weird...Be6??...why the double question mark...if anything Bd7 should get the ??...you could just play Ke7 and save the rook...Qxa8 hardly deserves a !..same for Bxf2+!! and Qxb5!...is capturing a hanging queen really that good a move o_O

Whenever you are asked to resign or told it looks like you should resign or why you haven't resigned.

Just say, I want to see your winning technique!

If i knew my opponent was stronger i'd this resign in this position. I just don't understand why he didn't want to exchange the queens after your Qa8.

I knew you were going to say that.

It's a bad habit. I'm so used to playing 2...Nc6 instead of the more interesting and fun 2...Nf3, going into: C20: King Pawn Game: Wayward Queen Attack, Kiddie Countergambit.

I never noticed this before. Check it out!

Chess Games Home » Database: 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6
There are no games with this position found in the database.

I'll see if I can find a game in Chess Base.

It's not a popular line, with only 156 games found, with only one, maybe two master level games. For 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6, there are 279 games. Here is one with each line.

I get excited.

what is a rook, if not a piece?  a rook is a chess piece.

I dont understand why the guy didn't trade off Queens after he was up a Rook and a Knight I would simplify simplify.  Definatly room for improvement (but who can't improve right?).  FYI when you say down a piece you have no idea what.  It could be a Pawn, Knight, Bishop, Rook, or Queen so you need to be specific otherwise people have no idea, becasue being down a Pawn is much different then being down a whole Rook.

I agree with Durdan.  If you're up by that much material, turn reductionist and trade, trade, trade.  You're lucky he didn't trade queens with you :-)

Sorry about that.

In my chess books, a piece is defined as either a minor piece (knight, bishop) or a major piece (rook, queen). A pawn is not called a piece. A pawn is just that, a pawn. When I said down a piece, I meant to say down a knight, bishop, rook or queen - not down a pawn.

Excellent point. I'm going to continue not resigning, even when down a knight, bishop or rook. Losing a queen with no compensation?  Ouch! Resign.

I always salute a fighting spirit. I've been down a rook and a queen against a player that is 400 rated more than me and won. often the player winning will have the feeling that the win is unavoidable and therefore overlook a counterattack and even a mate in two. actually he had two queens and I had only one.

as long as you have something you want to try it makes sense to fight on.

but if you have no plan and you are heavily down material and you could easily win the position yourself if you were playing against you. I think resigning is not a bad thing to do.
but I think instead of getting mad at people not resigning we should respect and honour their fighting spirit.
in my example I was down a rook and a queen but I still had something I wanted to try. Heavily down material but I had a plan.

Excellent point. Thank you.

Yes. I did see a possible way of winning a queen, and it was extremely rewarding to see my plan come to fruition.

It's not easy for a beginning chess player like me to come up with a plan. And it does get boring at times to only focus on rapid development in the opening, followed by the hope of seeing a tactic or two that can win the game. At my level, it's beat into me to practice tactics, checkmates and simple endgames (K+R vs. K, K+P vs. K) to the exclusion of everything else.

Maybe I will crack open one of my middlegame books by Silman (Amateur's Mind, Reassess Your Chess, 4th. ed.) and read a chapter or two. In a nutshell, Silman does talk about looking at imbalances, and then formulating a plan based on that observation.

Oh no! I hope I haven't started another thread about Silman!

I do like his writing style, even though it seems like his target audience is the intermediate - advanced student, which I am not. However, I'm still practicing my king and rook vs. king and king and pawn vs. king exercises from Silman's Complete Endgame Course, which is a book written for all skill levels.

Down a rook and still managed to get the win, huh?  I'll do you a few pieces better.

http://blog.chess.com/qbsuperstar03/never-surrender

That was so cool! Did you hang/donate pieces on purpose? For the fun and challenge of it all?

Actually, no. :(