Resign on last move?

Sort:
Avatar of anthonee1
Rael wrote: Rael wrote:

You know what? This thread is a testament to the chess.com community at large. This was such a civil discussion throughout - and it has a lot to owe to Anthonee's real class. He admits where he might've been wrong at times, awknowledges possible misunderstandings and clarifies, all the while advancing the discussion and engaging every poster personally, always in a positive manner. Anthonee, you're exactly the type of person that should be on this site. Smart, thoughtful, questioning... thanks for hosting this discussion. I look forward to future postings.


 Was this misplaced?


No Sir... it wasn't. I just didn't read it before I posted prior to getting to it. My apologies for the confusion...


Avatar of pay

By move 30 the material difference is 10 points with no immediate means of reducing it, and there's no real sign of any chance of counterplay for White, so I would definitely give it up as hopeless by then.  Depending on my opponent's rating, I could easily resign sooner than that. It also depends on the position. Give me a passed pawn, or an active rook behind enemy lines, and maybe I'll play a few more moves to make the other guy prove he knows how to shut me down. Well, and in fact, if I was playing against a total patzer, maybe--maybe--I'd play on a little beyond that, too, but probably not.

But see, that's the issue with not resigning a hopelessly lost position (like the example game at move 30, for instance): if I don't resign, I'm saying to my opponent either a) I'm not strong enough to see how lifeless my own potential play in this position is, or b) I think he's so poor at the game that he's going to hang a bunch of pieces while struggling to convert the win. The former isn't true, and the latter would be insulting, given Black's play up to that point.

Sure, there's always some slim chance, but so what? I'd much rather congratulate my opponent for there well-fought victory and start up a new game then drag on and on hoping that they manage to screw themselves and hand me a win I didn't earn.

On the flip side, I don't really mind when my opponent doesn't resign what I consider a lost position, because I realize not everyone thinks as I do. I recognize we all have different perspectives, and if my opponent wants to hang in there for a cheapo win, that's their decision, and I'm honing my skills while looking for the simplest or most elegant way of proving the win.

This is different from when someone offers draw in a hopelessly lost position. That really does irritate me. But that's a different discussion altogether...

 


Avatar of pay
Rael wrote: Loomis wrote: Why promote to queens? Promote to knights, it's much fun to torture someone with a bunch of knights than with queens.

Holy lord, Loomis, you're right! I'm going to have to post an imaginary game wherein 5 knights torment a lone king with a series of wild checks, just running circles around him... that's downright scary.

I like the way your mind works!


 I'm sitting in my living room at 10pm laughing out loud. If my wife comes in, I won't be able to explain it to her, but that's one of the funnier images I've had in my mind in some time.

Do be careful with your plague of knights (or queens, for that matter). Think how foolish you'll feel when you accidentally stalemate your opponent while being a smarty pants. (Speaking as someone who got bored in a K+Q+N+P+P vs K+P endgame and stumbled into a stalemate in a tournament just two weeks ago...)

 


Avatar of kohai
Rael wrote: Because you think that both Loomis and I would fall into a stalemate?

 You're both chess sadists