Resign on last move?

What is the general feeling about when it comes to chess when a player is down to their last move before being mated; ...then chooses to resign instead of making that move? Should it be considered something positive, indifferent, or negative? Your feedback is appreciated. 

Indifferent.

Unless you think that when you die and stand in front of the Pearly Gates, St. Peter asks you how many times you checkmated someone at chess. 

I feel that someone has the right to resing at any point or shoose not to resign at all and make their opponent go all the way to mate.  I have been in games I have refused to resign and my opponent who was 1 move from mate, does not see it and makes a tactical error and I end up winning the game or forcing it to a draw....

Patience is the best thing to practice...Some people need to learn... 

Thanks for your response. It seemed strange to elect to do that when you're faced with only one last move. When I lose, I play it all the way to the end. I'm just miffed at my opponent because they chose to do that without answering why (although they don't have to choose to answer).

This same player would leave without notice on their next move when the pressure was put on; but of course the game would continue in the time frame.

I really don't think that a player should resign on their last move.

Actually, I don't think that a player should want to resign at all in a game.

Regardless of what a player may do, they may do something different, even if it is obvious.  I actually beat one of my friends at a chess game right as he was about to checkmate me.

Funny story, I had a game that I played a quite a few years ago in a tournament where I was sure the game was hopelessly lost, and sure, many people may have thought it was lost.  I was down two bishops, a knight, and crapload of pawns.  He had a passed pawn on the seventh rank, and I was going to be checkmated in maybe five moves.

Now, here is the funny part.  I still had my queen and two rooks, and saw that, amazingly enough, I was desperate for a way out instead of knocking over my king.  I was seriously considering it.  I then realized, "If I can get my queen to that spot, he'll be checkmated instantly!"  I traded my two rooks, and he still had his, and I took the rook with my queen, and me, one move away from checkmate, won by a back rank mate:

Your opponent may slip, or you may get the chance of calling a touch move (in the case of a human vs. human actual game).

Never forfit, even if you are one move away from checkmate.  Who knows?  You may actually find a stalemate or some other way to win.

In general, resignation is an admission of defeat.  It's no different than if you beat someone by checkmating them.

It's not about an ego boost. It's ovious that a resignation is a win. I just want to get the general consensus on the feeling of someone doing this on the last possible move in a game of chess. From people who know about the game.

There is ettiquette; and that's what I'm trying to find out. I've been playing this game over 30 years, and this is the first time I've played it against people on-line from all over the world...so my thing is to find out about this situation ettiquette wise. It has nothing to do with my opponent, or ego boost.

I win on the last move either way (no ego boost needed). It's the opponent's choice on whether to make that last move or resign the last move; that brings up the question for me.

As for myself. I never would push the resign button. Looking forward to everyone's response.

It's my understanding that the more experienced you become, the more you learn when a position is genuinely lost. Only at the beginner level can you really hold out for a major blunder. Sure, it happens when your opponent is an amateur, that he or she might blunder away a Queen or something, but really, you'll learn that resignation is a natural part of the game. In fact, the higher up you go, the more it's actually seen as embarrassing to play on in a clearly lost position (this is why most GM games end with resignations).

So just recently I played a game wherein my opponent decided to play on well past the point as I figured he should resign. He waited until I mated him. I'm going to post it here and ask your honest opinions - at what point would you have resigned, or would you not have resigned at all?

I played as black, but I'm going to post the game from white's side of the board so you can tell me when you would've resigned. Turn #'s. 

Rael Wrote: "...It's my understanding that the more experienced you become, the more you learn when a position is genuinely lost. Only at the beginner level can you really hold out for a major blunder. Sure, it happens when your opponent is an amateur, that he or she might blunder away a Queen or something, but really, you'll learn that resignation is a natural part of the game. In fact, the higher up you go, the more it's actually seen as embarrassing to play on in a clearly lost position (this is why most GM games end with resignations)..."

Thank you Rael. I appreciate your answer. For my opponent to choose resignation over making the last possible forced move; just mad ethis question come about for me.   ....the key thing is the "last possible forced move" in this instance...not resigning because you know you're probably going to lose in a series of moves...

You can see that by move 12 my opponent is down 2 pieces and behind in development.

On move 21 I increase this gap by trading my bishop for his rook. I'm also up a number of pawns.

On move 23 I have a passed pawn on the 2nd rank.

On move 27 I take his remaining Rook and pin his knight.

On move 30 I win the knight, opening up the back rank for a Queen.

Move 32 I Queen.

By move 34 my rooks are clearly aligned on either side of his king, containing him on the 2nd rank, and my Queen is ready to complete the mate.

Turn 35 mate.

To say that he/she should not have resigned earlier is to say that you still felt he/she had winning chances by X move.

My question is, at which point in the game is mate inevitable - with no drawing chances? I'm honestly interested. Do some people really think that by move 30 I could've still lost?

I guess the idea is, Anthonee1, that a game can be lost even without a mate in sight, with proper play for both sides. Let me make a parrallel with literature: the better a writer you are, the fewer grammatical/spelling errors you make in your prose. Now, of course, you still make the occasionel slip, but on the whole, your error rating is far down from a beginner who might be like: Hay I relly want too be a grate ritter.

So it also involves respect for your opponent. At some point you simply know that the people you're playing against at a certain level cannot simply make those errors anymore than a writer of a certain skill can misspell a word.

Now, don't get me wrong, everyone at their own pace, of course. Beginners have to play out games until mate to learn this skill. I don't advocate rushing that. Everyone needs a lot of endgame experience. I'm just trying to clarify that at higher levels (for both players), the ability to detect a lost position develops and has implications for draw offers and resignations.

It's funny - I've been going through Kasparov's memorable games - and a lot of the time they end with a resignation and I'm like "What? Why??"... sure enough he and Karpov are both able to see some irrefutable 12 move mate line. Haha. I'll never be at that level myself. 

After playing the series of moves in your game I don't think I would've resigned at all. There still were plenty of Pawns on the board to try some other avenues; but by your opponent not moving the King next to the Bishop at the time you were retrieving your new Queen...they left themselves open for a quick Check Mate. I would've used the Bishop & King to prolong the chances I had of retrieving another piece with the Pawns left on the board.

Inevitably however the game was still strong in your favor with the two Rooks & Queen.

Inevitably however the game was still strong in your favor with the two Rooks & Queen."

My friend, I especially love your last line. I want to repeat it bolded. 

the game was still strong in your favor with the two Rooks & Queen

That's awesome.

Okay, Anthonee1 - I understand your skepticism, which is why I want to make you this deal. Do you plan on staying with chess.com for a while? I hope so. Here's what we'll do. I'll message you in 1 year to this day, Wednesday, March 19th, 2009, with a link to this thread, and we'll re-open the debate then, just to see where you're at. I bet there will be a world of difference.

My other offer is that you can choose any turn in the game I posted and we can play from there. Remember that as early as move 12 I'm up 2 whole pieces! But, if you like, pick the turn and we'll play the game as normal, following the move list, until you choose the turn to deviate on. I'm betting you, if you really sit down and think about it, it'd be as early as like, move 10. Lol. Honestly, if you wanted to play me in that game anywhere past move 20... well, hell buddy.

Hehe. I'm just posting all this to give you a heads up. Trust your instincts and test it out. We'll chat in a year, eh?

 hope its all he asks

Sorry to interrupt here guys, can i ask say something, purely out of curiousity ?

Anthonee1 - I'd be very interested to see the outcome of the following suggeston i have for you:

Using the annotations Rael has given, for his moves on said board, set yourself up a board, and "you" play out that game against Rael's moves .. see how you fayre, then come back onto this forum thread and show the results of your moves.

I'm interested to see the results.