Resigning at ANY point shows LAZINESS and lack of respect.
Chess is war. What would've happened if Churchill "tipped his king" during WWII? WAKE UP!!!!!!
Curious you should choose WWII. What would have happened if Hirohito had not?
Resigning at ANY point shows LAZINESS and lack of respect.
Chess is war. What would've happened if Churchill "tipped his king" during WWII? WAKE UP!!!!!!
Curious you should choose WWII. What would have happened if Hirohito had not?
Another excellent point thegrobe, though Hirohito's power was largely decorative even as early as the 30s. It was Tojo who really tipped the king over, and curiously, he was executed. It's funny how those great leaders who do the right thing are excoriated, particularly by their own people. "Kruschev blinked". We may all owe our lives to that great man, yet he was booted from the Politburo because he "blinked" and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Just a couple of examples that show how humans love to punish other humans for doing the right thing by humanity.
"you should only resign one move before checkmate." ~Grandmaster Lev Alburt.
I'd be interested to see a citation for that quote -- I can't find one, and the reason I looked is because it seems a ridiculous thing for a GM to say.
I think resigning at a certain time depends entirely on the level of the player. I am only a 1200ish player and there is no way I am going to resign just one piece down against someone similar and I would think the opponent feels the same. My son was playing someone the other day and was about to resign after going down a knight against a nearly 1300 player and I took over the game and somehow squeezed out a win. I have been forked early in a game, lost my queen and still won. I I have had NUMEROUS games where I was ahead at the end game and because I am such a lousy end game player, my opponent ended up winning. We all blunder and sometimes the pieces just fall into place in our favor with discovered checks, etc. Whatever mistake one makes to go down a piece, the opponent can easily do the same at some point and we all know that they do. The one kind of game where a player should resign is when you are chasing him with a Q and a Rook and he has nothing but a few pawns and he keeps running like he has a prayer.
I dont want to sound like a winge, but shurely that is unfair to your opponant who may well be working very hard to improve thier game to have a win stolen by a better player??
or is it just me??
"you should only resign one move before checkmate." ~Grandmaster Lev Alburt.
Riiiight. That may well be the most despicable time to resign. If it gets that close, let 'em make the move. Sheesh.
The moral from that story is, don't resign when you can cheat instead...
I am currently playing a game where I am desperatly losing - I am down in material and my opponent is about to promote a pawn. Normally I would resign in this position however, this is the last game in the group stage of a tournament and I currently top the group by 1/2 a point on the tie break with my opponent in second place. I am hoping for a miracle and while there is still a faint glimmer of hope that I can force a draw or even win (I still have a pawn on the board) I will fight on. If this had been a game at the bottom of the group with no chance of me going through to the next round I would have resigned.
I sometimes resign out of frustration if I blunder away a piece, but in general I wait until I'm down material and pretty sure I'm out of counterplay (well -- out of counterplay that I can identify, anyway, I'm sure I've resigned games where a stronger player would have devised a strategy to give me a chance).
I don't like hanging on in a lost position hoping my opponent blunders and gives me the game. I want my wins to be because I outplayed my opponents, not because they threw games away. If I get 20 points from beating a player who had a won game and accidentally threw away a piece in his haste, that's essentially just inflating my own rating, as I see it. I want to improve at chess and I want my record to reflect that.
when i have only my king left. I always hope for a blunder or two
I agree what the poster said above. When a lone King vs. a King + R or K +Q continues is does seem a bit over the top BUT I have blundered and caused a stalemate. Also just maybe your oppoentn is trying to see how you finish. Maybe he/she is trying to learn something but remember there is always that possibility of stalemate.
As a general rule I will resign when I am playing a stronger opponent and I see no way for a Draw.
That being said a player has every right to make you checkmate him to end the game. He has every right to play on to the bitter end even though it frustrates us.
I don't think I would ever resign unless I had to be somewhere, finishing the game, and trying up until the very end is an important part of the game to me.
resign when down by 17 or greater, thats an accepted rule across the board, i really though more people knew about that.
You should resign when the position is hopeless (or the only hope is your opponent hving a heart attack). When the position has no interesting charicteristics where you can learn something. If you are down a pawn and he can push through to queen and you know that he can, but don't know how play on and learn something.
This is a game where I dropped a Knight early to a pawn fork to a fairly solid player. I almost resigned the game... but Im glad i didnt.
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=29351145
You'd think that by this point the only ones left arguing would be the non-resigners.
Perhaps that's telling: the resigners only quit when in a losing position, the non-resigners never quit whether winning or losing....
I will resign when they remove my mouse from my cold, dead hand.
and the scales. but ol' ike came along and winston won it so...