FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I have been playing quite a few online games and not much live chess lately.
However, I make many blunders because my time-per-move is like 9 hours. By the time I come back to move I forget about things in the game.
I have been losing quite a bit, but the funny thing is when it's only my king left, the opponent gets angry/annoyed. They tell me things like:
"Stop wasting my time!" and "You know you're going to lose!" and stuff like that. Of course, some of them more polite than others.
I recently played a game in which this occurred.
Here is the picture of how the game ended:
But then looking at the chat, this is the exact string:
JoHo17: Can you resign please
Arkafan: No. If you don't want to waste your time then you can offer me a draw or you can resign yourself.
Arkafan: NOW you know why I don't resign. :P
JoHo17 asked me to resign nearly a week ago, probably on move 44. I said no, and see what happened now!
I use this moral all the time, especially with vote chess. Never resign. Although you may waste a little more time on some games where you lose anyways, you have NOTHING to lose if you keep playing and something to gain. And you might just have a lucky endgame!
So the gods smiled favorably upon you! There are good reasons to resign, but being pestered and whinged at to do so does not qualify as one of them. I think it is proper and good sportsmanship that I resign when I believe my game is lost. I have no problem however if the situation is the reverse and my opponent wants to play it out to the last bloody fingernail.
Trying to create a stale-mate is part of the game of chess, playing on to the end check mate is nothing wrong with that. But if the winning side keeps promoting pawns to queens can cause a no square for the other king to move thus satemate. Go for it!
The title of this thread is FANTASTIC advice for all players rated under 1300. It's good advice for most players rated under 1500 here.
Once a player reaches ~1800, they should know when it's proper to resign.
Anatoly Karpov once said that he will be impressed when engines learn how to resign. It really is an advanced skill!
Caveat: If you choose to play on, do not drag out the game by refusing to move until the last second. Play the game at a reasonable pace. It's terribly bad form to wait until the very last minute to make your move, especially in correspondence.
This ^^^^ is spot on.
In addition though, after 43.... Kxc2 it became a simple K+R v K endgame and he did not put you away, he marched down to get a Q adn then could only stalemate you. He could have easily mated you without doing that. He prolonged the game also.
For a 1700 rated player to miss b.file mate, or that c2/4 are stalemates, says time control or being mad that a 1300 rated will not resign got the better of him.Now we have a chess player thinking being down the r/q is time to apply my end game skills. Hard too believe.
This "never resign" thing is the thinking of a beginner player. When I was a beginner (and even after some years when I was a weak player) I thougt always "I will never give up the game!" And I played everything until I got the mate, even if it was K+Q vs K endgame, which is already lost. Then as I became stronger player, and understood chess better, I learnt when to resign and when to play.You should play a chess game until you have any chance to avoid losing. It means that for example, if you have a move, and if your opponent answers badly for it and by that you will get a draw, then you should play that move, and if your opponent anwers well, then you should resign. But you should not hope for that your opponent will stalemate position with a queen up if you have only a king, etc.
I am just quoting this so everyone, inc the OP, doesnt miss it.
"No. If you don't want to waste your time then you can offer me a draw or you can resign yourself."
I would find this very rude, and whatever the match outcome is, I would never ever play a single game against you. I would not also ask you to resign, because I would think that you know nothing about endgames and trying to learn something.
also Retifan +1
It is extremely rude to ask your opponent to resign.
There is no rule, written or unwritten, which requires a player to resign, although most decent players can recognize a lost cause and respect the person who inflicted it upon them enough to tip the King. But it is absolutely unacceptable to ask or demand your opponent resign.
You can do whatever you want. It's chess. Sometimes it may be best to resign but other times its fine to play it out. Even grandmasters make mistakes, especially in bullet chess.
"Anatoly Karpov once said that he will be impressed when engines learn how to resign. It really is an advanced skill!"
Perhaps that was said in jest, but that kind of thing is really disturbing for me to read. People have so many subtle complexities for the perfect time to resign, it's sad that they expect people to consider it just as deeply. It's hard enough to play chess; if they are a "bad resigner," please -- maybe they are just more focused on being a good chess player rather than becoming a good resigner. I just don't think "when to resign" is something that should disturb a chess player's thought. If you just let them resign when they are comfortable they won't have to agonize over the decision the whole game.
Anyway, by posting a title like this, you are provoking people to call you a beginner and are provoking the people who are against playing on to vehemently make their case.
I think the game, considering white's rating, is really convincing -- I bet most 1700 online chess players think this thing would never happen to them -- they would always be on top of it -- well, probably, but you just never know when you are going to have a brain malfunction. You can miss obvious things if you are inattentive to the board -- for example, if you are focusing your attention on the kingside because you think you have an attack, you can miss a one move attack to your rook from a queen on the queenside -- something you know a lot about, but are simply not paying attention to.
I agree, that's very rude. If you act like this to every higher rated player, none of them will want to play you anymore, and you will find it difficult to get better without playing stronger opponents regularly.
Oh, please. Sometimes I think chess players are going to murder others over resignation point. They think it's a life or death issue. It's disgusting. So a person dragged a game out and made you spend more time than you personally wanted to -- let him live.
I don't think anyone is advocating murder here, unless you count not giving a rematch as murdering
Rude? Maybe. But if I understand chess etiquette, the OP's opponent had already been equally rude by asking for a resignation; arguably, he deserved no better by way of response. So given the circumstances, I'm not inclined to consider him terribly wronged.
Some people have strong opinions about it. Not everyone can be as laid back and indifferent about resigning as you elubas
I don't know why, but these kind of posts (the OP) bug me for some reason. Are you playing on because you can learn something? Because the result is still in doubt to you? If that's your reason, then fine, play on. But if you're wasting time because you're hoping for a 1 in a million chance blunder then that's annoying to me. If you're a beginner you get a free pass because the result is probably in doubt to you, and you can probably learn something. Otherwise I'm not so sure it's correct.
We hope for one in ten blunders, or one in a hundred, one in a million is just one more hope. I personally don't see how it is unpleasant to finish off, say, an endgame a queen up. I have total control, a very easy time controlling my opponent's threats, and so really the win should be pretty smooth sailing. The only complaint someone could make is, well, that they have to actually go through the process of doing something "that they know they can definitely do as long as they're focused."
Well, ok, if Carlsen were to hypothetically get a 3000 rating, way above everyone else, should we just give him the world championship "because we know he would win it, thus it's wasting his time to make him actually win it?" Well, no -- he can't be so lazy that he can just choose not to go through the process and expect to be world champ. If he didn't play in the world championship, I wouldn't look at him as a world champion, I would look at him for what he was: A person who would have been world champion if he played in it, but wasn't.
In CC chess, the time factor grows significantly -- but in OTB, what's the worst that could happen? An extra 30 minutes of play? Yes, I think the one in a million chance is worth that. Also, the intentions of the one playing on is important.
I have not been playing online here for very long, but I have already had several games in which my opponent was TOTALLY BUSTED but would not resign until the last possible moment. One went to checkmate.
Did I care? Not in the least. My curiosity was piqued, but that was about it. When it came time every day to make my moves, I just called that game or games up first, got the move out of the way quickly, and went on to games where I really had to think. I just cannot understand the ire people express in this forum about opponents not resigning. Where are you going? Overseas? Outer space? So you have to play a few more moves to win, big deal. Play them.
I have 12 games going at once all the time. There's always an interesting position on deck where I really have to buckle down and analyze. If the occasional boob doesn't realize he's busted, that's like a sunny morning in May to me--as opposed to most of my other games which are cold sleety February afternoons.