if Im playing against a player as good as i am, (or as bad as I am, depending on your perspective 
) I will resign when I see a forced mate. even if its the last move, I suppose. is there really a difference between setting up a mate (doing all the work of finding it and leading/forcing your opponent to it) and actuating it in the game? i dont think so.
Resign on last move?
Sort:
pleasant_business wrote:
if Im playing against a player as good as i am, (or as bad as I am, depending on your perspective ) I will resign when I see a forced mate. even if its the last move, I suppose. is there really a difference between setting up a mate (doing all the work of finding it and leading/forcing your opponent to it) and actuating it in the game? i dont think so.
I guess the difference is the one on the end of getting the checkmate; actually might not see it.....
...but in this case I knew the game was over once my opponent made the final move of the King.
Thank you for your response pleasant_business. I like it.
This thread seems to be about chess etiquette which is a difficult subject. Let's go off on a tangent for a while...
The objective of chess is very simple - you play to win (putting aside any ideas of intellectual stimulation). The mechanics you employ to achieve this are diverse: obviously you need some intelligence; some concepts of what chess is about and how the pieces work together; some knowledge of openings, middle game strategy, and end game ideas; you need to be determined, calm, agressive and focussed; and you need to at least be aware of pschological aspects, if not use them yourself. If there was no human side to chess, no errors, no over- or under-estimation of position strengths, we might as well play one computer against another. In his heyday, Kasparov was sometimes said to win by the force of his personality glaring over the board (with an amazing chess brain thrown in as well of course).
Not resigning can be a way of annoying the opponent. If the position is lost then the winning player may make a silly mistake leading to a draw or worse, or may try too hard to win, to show that the position really is lost, and then overstretch. At the end of the day, if someone wants you to show them they have a losing position then prove it and checkmate them!
So back to etiquette...
I think that there are several factors at play here.
The first is that this is online, and not over-the-board. People generally play several games at once, and so are more likely to make mistakes. I have lost several games because I looked at them, decided what I was going to play, went off and made a cup of coffee, looked at a few other games and then came back and made completely the wrong move. It happens... So if people are more likely to make mistakes, surely it makes sense to be less prone to resign? Or should we say "well, the position isn't looking so good, and I'm not going to insult you by hoping you're going to make a mistake, so I'll resign"? And where do you draw the line? If I'm playing a high-rated player should I resign earlier than when playing a low-rated player? Do high-rated players never make mistakes? Let's be honest, any move that is not as good as the perfect move in any given position (assuming that there is such a thing as the perfect move) is a mistake. Everything else is just a matter of degree.
The second factor is that we are playing many people from around the world who may have different rules of conduct. Someone from a local chess club in Manila may have a different style of etiquette to someone who plays under the bridge for their next fix. People who are used to playing over-the-board will have different ideas of when to resign to people who play blitz (just waiting for the clock to drop!) etc.
The other side to this question is when people resign too early. Sometimes when you have a commanding position, then make a silly mistake and end up worse off, it can be tempting to resign, even if you have drawing chances.
So what should the etiquette be? That's a tricky question, but I think that the chess.com community evolves a general consensus, and also you will find people online who have the same idea of when to resign, and who will be open to your own ideas.
At the end of the day, I am sure that while objective analysers win the most games, optimists win more chess games than pessimists!
Cheers
move 29...all last 3 rank victoriously controlled by black rooks and would be promoted pawn..if its me i'll resign and get on with other game.If its in tournament i'll resign too..its too obvious.
jonloop wrote:
This thread seems to be about chess etiquette which is a difficult subject. Let's go off on a tangent for a while...
Cheers
jonloop your post was outstanding. You are right on cue when you say this seems to be about etiquette; as I just wanted to get a general feel about same.
I appreciated your input.
Rael wrote:
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 haven't read the whole thread but I'd say that I'd probabily resigned right after hanging the knight. It's just like you say: the more you play the more you learn about lost positions and resigning them. The only times I don't resign lost positions right away is when I'm not certain that my opponent can win them. If I know that he can winin that situation I see no point in spending anymore energy on that particular game.
That being said I'd say that if you are new to the game or don't know how to recognise lost positions, then by all means play on. That's the best way to learn. After the all the goal of chess is to checkmate your opponent not to make him resign.
I've seen masters game that ended like that. I think it answers your question.
Anyway I dont get it why theres so much fuss about resigning...
anthonee1 wrote:
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?
It's a positive feeling for one who mates. Another one who is mated feels upset - it becomes harder to make good moves etc. (without material, for example). The one who is winning can not demand to play till the mate from the opponent. But if you are losing you can remember that the mate combinations also have a value in chess and you can do a favour to your opponent by playing till the mate. While it can be a question of favour it's a good idea to give a trophy like "Without Resign" or "Die Hard" (I'm not a native english speaker so one can suggest a better expression) as encouragement and appreciation from the winner.
EmTom wrote:
I've seen masters game that ended like that. I think it answers your question.
Anyway I dont get it why theres so much fuss about resigning...
I don't get it either. It seems to be one of the main recurring topics here in the forums. It's usually somebody ticked that their opponent won't resign a clearly lost position. I've never seen this take on it before. Getting upset at not being allowed to mate your opponent is childish. As far as ettiquette is concerned, no it is not tricky. You resign when you are done playing. It is proper that you accept your opponents resignation without question. If you have a problem with your opponent resigning before you mate them, perhaps chess is not good game for you.
as a side bar to this debate... how should you confront an opponent who's insisting you resign. whether they're truly in a unbeatable position or not. I consider more than one pleasent suggestion/nod to the out ...that is resigning, really rude.(ie i'm clearly beat... or maybe not to me clearly beat... but my attacks/movements aren't doing much. ...opponent "reminds" me I could resign if i want to. I normally consider it. Trying to "see" the board. but will generally play through... just to watch the play unfold. If someone makes repeated statements that I should resign, I find that really annoying).
Mar 20, 2008
0
#52
ezras23, its not very fair to call people "sore losers" because they resign a game.
I've resigned many a game for many different reasons, some of them being;
* my opponent has several main pieces on the board, and i had 1 pawn and a king. Yes perhaps i could still win [LOL] but that is doubtful for me.
* I am a lady, and know when to resign gracefully [without being a sore loser]
* I know when i am beaten, and when i have lost a game
* It, at the end of the day, is my choice as to whether or not i resign. Sometimes i will offer my opponent an explaination as to my resignation, sometimes its blatantly obvious and no explaination is required..
Some people can see when a game is lost, they accept that and move on to the next game, again that is their perogative.
Resigning a game works both ways, and personal preference and choice.
It has nothing to do with being a sore loser.
McFly wrote: EmTom wrote:
I've seen masters game that ended like that. I think it answers your question.
Anyway I dont get it why theres so much fuss about resigning...
I don't get it either. It seems to be one of the main recurring topics here in the forums. It's usually somebody ticked that their opponent won't resign a clearly lost position. I've never seen this take on it before. (A) Getting upset at not being allowed to mate your opponent is childish. As far as ettiquette is concerned, no it is not tricky. You resign when you are done playing. (B) It is proper that you accept your opponents resignation without question. (C) If you have a problem with your opponent resigning before you mate them, perhaps chess is not good game for you.
(A) Herein lies misjudgement on McFly's part.... No one's upset at their opponent for not being able to mate them. It's a question about using the last bit of strength to move the King out of check, or clicking on the resign button.
(B) If this is proper...then why could it not be considered childish to resign on the last forced move from your understanding? There's more ways to look at the situation then closed.
(C) I feel different types of attitudes are prevelent in the game of chess and have their place. Someone can be angry and still play a good game of chess; but I personally choose to be focused when playing and not angry. Either way, I can't agree with that last sentence.
ezras23 wrote:
I think it as negative because they should just finish,who cares if they are goingto lose, they just quit because they are sore losers
Disagree! The chess game is about understanding. If the next moves are obvious for you then doesn't matter if these moves were played on board or in your head. The same is if you simply don't want to waste a time playing the rest of the game when the result is evident - you prefer to focus on new games. So don't be too categorical ;)
I think this is hard to get our minds around.... those of us who are new to chess etiquette.....this concept of not wasting time. I think we need to get over ourselves and stop stressing about loosing a game. When you loose it wells up negative emotions and its hard to not get defencive, instead we need to look at the game and learn from it, take the loss and apply to the next game.
demonic_seer wrote:
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:
So, I definately say, "NEVER FORFIT!"
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.
i agree never resign
anthonee1 wrote:
(A) Herein lies misjudgement on McFly's part.... No one's upset at their opponent for not being able to mate them. It's a question about using the last bit of strength to move the King out of check, or clicking on the resign button.
(B) If this is proper...then why could it not be considered childish to resign on the last forced move from your understanding? There's more ways to look at the situation then closed.
(C) I feel different types of attitudes are prevelent in the game of chess and have their place. Someone can be angry and still play a good game of chess; but I personally choose to be focused when playing and not angry. Either way, I can't agree with that last sentence.
I'll take the bait and respond.
(A) Review all the posts. There are posts calling resigning players "rude" and "sore losers". To me that sounds like people getting upset. I don't believe I have misjudged anybody's words. And as for the question of It's a question about using the last bit of strength to move the King out of check, or clicking on the resign button -- there is no difference. The same player still wins.
(B) If you can accept that there is no difference in winning by resignation or winning by mate (especially with a mate in 1 situation), then no it is not childish to resign.
(C) I know you don't agree with me, and I don't care. I don't agree with most of what you've stated in this thread, and I'm sure pretty sure you don't care. We'll have to agree to disagree.
(A) McFly is right that it is silly to get upset with someone when they resign. Anthonee, you were upset that your opponent didn't use that last little bit of energy, you were upset that he resigned. But I think we've taken care of that.
(B) McFly is again right. There is no reason to question why an opponent resigned. You won the game. Be happy with it. It cannot be considered childish to resign if that is how a player feels.
(C) McFly is right again, resigning is a part of the game. If you don't like it, that's odd. It's like saying, I don't like the way the knight moves.
----------------
I think this is similar to a player feeling that it's not a real win when they win on time, as they begin to play blitz chess. The only time I was upset about my opponent resigning early was because I wanted to execute a particularily beautiful mating net or something, and I just didn't get to.
In the game you posted, Anthonee, mate is one move away. The game is over. Be happy with your win. If you mate an opponent or he resigns or you win on time, they're all exactly the same. A win is a win is a win.
I am ok with peolpe resigning, sometimes i think its smart if it all most for sure your opponet is going to win,and there is still a fair amount of game to have but why resign on the last move, what's the point in that? Plus i take more sataishfaction when i play a whole game, id be kinda ticked if someone knew i had the win and just decied to resign then!
The next time I play someone who absolutely refuses to resign when the game is completely lost (like the guy did in the game I posted above), I'm going to do the reverse thing on them whereby I will systematically kill their whole army, and promote all of my remaining pawns to Queens before mating them. If they want to stretch the game out past sensibility, then I will stretch it well past sensibility. In the future, they'll be more likely to resign when the game is completely lost. Resignation was created for just this reason. Imagine all chess games had to be played through to mate! Then all the time the winner would just torture his enemy... he wouldn't even have to look for cool mating combinations he could just slowly hack away until the opponent just had his king left, then he could very slowly promote each of his pawns to queens. Would anyone in this thread enjoy that? Or would they resign before it could happen?
Again, I'm not advocating immediate resignations, just a nuanced understanding of what a lost game looks like. Don't resign if you're down just one piece, DO resign if you're down 3 pieces or more and have a terrible position with no mating opportunities.
EDIT: Antonee, I don´t really se anything rude in resigning at that move, I might have asked you if you´d rather checkmate me then have me resing. But personally I would not have been offended by it, it does´nt change the way the game was played, and you can still judge for yourself if your happy with the way you played or not. I don´t really see why a win by checkmate is better than one by resigning.
Thank you for your comments TWE. I just want to get others opinions; as it will help me to be a better player in the future. The more I read how others feel about the last move/resign choice, the less I become miffed by it. Really helps out for the next challenge....