I don't like playing out lost games. When the position is so bad that I have no plan to follow and I might as well make random moves, then I'm not playing chess anymore. I prefer to resign before that happens.
I think that's absolutely fair, no one should expect you to play out a game you've no interest in.. Would you feel offended if your opponent did want to play out a game he was losing though? Because a lot of people would.
It seems to me there's always a plan though, even if it's limited to playing for a draw with a depth of 1 move.
Honestly I've preferred the few times I've managed to wring a draw out of a loss more than when I've won with a standard King Pawn endgame. It felt more like a win, even though it wasn't. But I imagine everyone's different, I would never begrudge anyone else to play as they chose.. I just wish the same held true Universally.
Heh, this is funny. Joeydvivre is right, 1 in 100 billion is a fair estimate. A piece down vs a GM (no compensation)? It's hard to make a comparison. It's not like surviving a 100 foot fall, more like surviving jumping into an erupting volcano...
You have to believeeeeeeeeee!!!!
Wow, cool :)
But now show it going into a volcano
I always thought people resigned because they couldn't see a way to save the game. People (not even GMs) don't give up so easily just because they are down material. They resign because they evaluate the situation as hopeless. If it turns out they were technically wrong, that doesn't specifically mean they would have been able to find the solution on the board. They already tried and gave up. It's the same as blundering. I've resigned drawable endings before, but my resignation wasn't because I wanted to be polite.
Fair enough. But is the situation hopeless under what one might consider perfect play, or hopeless regardless?
While I don't think one should base their moves on hoping the opponent doesn't see the flaw in the plan, I also don't feel people should assume the opponent will play perfect and necessarily see what you see.
There are situations where I agree with most.. A grandmaster just isn't going to mess up when play is down to 6 pieces and he's up a minor piece.. It's just not going to happen.. I personally think there's still room for error in the middle game though, be it overlooking a forced mate or hanging a piece, it happens even to grandmasters.
However even if it's KQ vs K which is probably drilled into all of our heads so that we could do it blindfolded, half asleep, with two hands behind our back. What's the harm in playing it out.. Definitively lost games play out quickly. More than a few people would find that rude though. It would be as if you were saying "You're an amateur". I've known a few people who would get REALLY worked up over something like that.. Honestly though, I'd still prefer to play it out.. Not because I want practice on my K+Q vs K endgames, or because I think my opponent is going to mess up.. But simply because I prefer the sense of closure checkmate brings.. It's an aesthetic thing for me more than anything else.. At least it is when it's fairly obvious to me who's going to win.
But I have personally felt the social pressure from similiar situations. I've even resigned out of "Politeness" when I felt there was at least a decent chance of drawing and would have preferred to play on and would have meant no disrespect in doing so. It bothered me that my only choices were to bow to a social convention I feel is silly, or infuriate someone essentially because that social convention is in place.
I think there are plenty of valid reasons to resign, but lacking a good reason.. Why not just play on, even in a losing position. Who does it hurt, other than an ego based on silly convention.. Again though, if you're tired, it's late, or you just don't want to.. That's fine.. I just don't think it should be expected.
Have you ever seen a grandmaster game? ... not trying to be rude, I just mean they resign pretty late as a rule, especially in important games (they're in the running for money / a title).
It's fine to play out a "pointlessly" lost game like K+R vs K. Once someone's done it enough times, and their peers are obviously good enough to not mess it up, people (generally) don't feel the need to see it anymore and will resign.
If someone is something like 1400 (USCF) and still insists on playing out K+R vs K against their peers though, I'd have to wonder what kind of OCD they might have that doesn't let them resign a clearly lost game heh.
I'm not sure it's rude, but I played a game where my opponent decided to promote a bunch of pawns. I kept playing because I would have had a stalemate if they captured the pawn I used to put them in check, which they didn't fall for. Since they made it clear they were going to promote all their pawns instead of getting the quick, and I've come to realize that the chances of stalemate seem to be more when you have a bunch of queens against a lone king, I continued playing. They then ended up chasing the king all over the board with their queens like they couldn't figure out how to get a checkmate.
Something like this. It was several months ago so the game is lost, but it was similar to this, and I'm not exaggerating about it. I remember the computer analysis went crazy over all the missed mates.
when I'm punishing someone for refusing to resign, I promote to rooks. Most immediately resign when they see I won't even give them a stalemate chance by using rooks instead of queens.
I received that advice before (from good-player) promote to rooks to prevent stalemate so well said.
To quote Bobby Fischer, "I like the moment when I break a man's ego."
Promote all your pawns if you can.
I think that the circumstances are true that if you promote when you are ahead is not rude.I have been a dumb player and promote so i got stalemate.
There ius nothing wrong with not promoting to a queen--I have had a couple of games lately where it was absolutely essential to promote to a N.
In games where you are way ahead and your opponent will not resign and you have plenty of time and want to try and make a point--then go ahead and under promote.
I just wonder when it became acceptable (or even encouraged, according to some posts) to play a rook-down endgame all the way out to mate. In my day (here I go), a player learned the basic checkmates very early in his or her career, and so it was assumed that every club level player knew how to win a piece up. And you NEVER saw a master-level game, even one given in an instructional book like Chess Master Vs. Chess Amateur, where the weaker side kept playing even when he was down a piece. So what is it with these chess coaches telling their pupils to NEVER resign? A pox upon them, I say.
Promote pawns until you have a full set again and then practice mating with 2 bishops. or 3 knights. =D
I agree ..... maybe chess needs a doubling cube like backgammon has in order to make some people resign when they should OR maybe lose twice the rating points when you " double" ?
I agree, and Chesscube has a doubling cube in... TOURNAMENTS
I don't think it's rude. If it's the quickest way to mate, do it.
Depends on the person I guess. I've had someone try this on me once and I made sure to use every last second I had in my time while making the game last for as long as possible with my moves.
As long as stalemate is a tie, I will go until a person proves they can win with mate. If that person decides to waste my time during the process, I will waste theirs back. In the end I'm never bothered by it so whatever they're trying to prove by doing so isn't working and I've already set aside the maximum amount of time for the game before I started. So it would probably be best for them to just mate and get it over with rather than prove a point, they won't have taught me to resign when they want someone to.
I agree with Tragasus - usually once you have promoted a pawn (usually to a Queen), your opponent should resign and not waste everybody's time.
Interesting to see this come back after 3 months. Just a couple of days ago I posted this in the "Fun with chess" forums showing the extreme punishment of one who doesn't resign!
Apologies for anyone who had to see this crap again...
Usually one queen should be enough to win and it is not rude to get it. Getting multiple promotions while you could win easily is very childish, even if you think the opponent should have resigned. Two wrongs don't make a right. I certainly never resigned when people started getting multiple promotions and I never will. I'll resign when I'm good and ready. If I'm in the mood to play the game out, not my problem what the opponent does!
I'll resign when I'm good and ready. If I'm in the mood to play the game out, not my problem what the opponent does!
Then I'll promote as much as I want and checkmate when I'm good and ready. If I'm in the mood to make a point about wasting time, not my problem what the opponent does!
And btw, a right and a wrong doesn't make it even. Playing on when you know the opponent will easily be able to checkmate you is what's really childish. Promoting extra pawns just makes a statement about how rude that is. So either resign or don't pass judgment when you waste their time to begin with.
It's an annoying waste of time either way. Just trap the king with a rook and end the stupid game.
People like to think chess is like other sports where if you try hard maybe you can pull something off. Chess isn't like that. At some point you're just screwed and there's nothing you can do about it.
I don't think they always expect to win. In sports like football or basketball the teams will play on in one-sided games even though it's blatantly obvious that there is no way they can win the game. Perhaps they are bringing this over to chess.
Strong players know that one-sided games are usually a matter of technique or a science. But I think most people will see it as a game or sport instead of a science and they will play on until the end.