Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store



  • #1

    What I find most nerve racking is playing on a VC team that wants to resign when we get into a bad position.  Especially When the loss isn't certain and there's atleast a possibility of a draw. 

    This is one of my recent game that, at first glance looks like a loss, but resulted in a draw:


    "It'd be pointless and rude to keep playing from this position."-Anonymous

    Who agrees with this guy (who shall remain nameless)?

    Personally, I find it more satisfactory to win a game with a checkmate then a resignation.

  • #2

    Maybe said criminal resigner is a woman? That may explain it.

  • #3

    I don't get it? Black seems to be completely winning in the end position.

    White let him off the hook with 40. Rde5.

  • #4

    Yes black is completely winning.. just tuck your king away on b8 and white's toast.  But to your point while I generally don't have a problem with people playing down to mate, it can get a little ridiculous. I often have games where I'm up a queen,rook and one or two pawns against bare king (or some similar massive deficit) and my opponent keeps playing.  It's truly a waste of time.

  • #5
    Please resign whenever you seem to go below 0.3654 pawns in material, it's only professional.
  • #6

    @CapAnson if you can't mate in a few moves with queen and rook against a lone king you should study endgames. Your opponent maybe should have resigned before it got to this point but now that he's there he's probably letting you finish by mating him.

  • #7

    Again this topic ?

    I will make the same answer : resign when it is desperate, "desperate" taking into account the player you are facing.

    When I'm down a piece (for nothing) against a player of my rating I will most usually resign. But if I've seen mistakes in the beginning and the situation reversed because of a big blunder of my part, I can keep playing.

    What makes "non-resigners" look sore losers at the others' eyes, it is that a significant percentage of non-resigners will use the most time possible until a mate on next move position and then timeout. This is just poor sportsmanship, and I wish you could explain me how it increases the drawing odds.


    And on why I resign even when I have a 0.001% chance to get a draw, my time is too precious to play dull and lost endgames hoping for an opponent's blunder. (I also care about my opponent's time.)

     EDIT : this 0.001% corresponds to the probability that the opponent just blunders out material in a totally winning position, not that there is a very cunning defense that saves my position...

    As for it being more satisfactory for the winning side to go until the mate, allow me to only laugh in front of this hypocrite justification. "I don't resign and waste time for both of us, but it is to go up the end, he will prefer it" : seriously ?

  • #8

    "And on why I resign even when I have a 0.001% to get a draw, my time is too precious to play dull and lost endgames hoping for an opponent's blunder. (I also care about my opponent's time.)"

    Fair enough. It's nice to know at least that you don't assume there is ever a 0% chance. It could be an extremely low chance, but it's not clear to me that blowing positions up tons of material is physically impossible. In fact some positions even could be outright zero chance to hold (not even a 1 in a trillion chance), but there is no reason for me to assume that -- consider how big a trillion is.

    The real question, which you addressed irontiger, is, is the tiny possibility of saving the game worth the extra time that would be put into it?

  • #9

    Let's argue that you're gonna play about 5000 serious games of chess in your life. If you resign whenever you have less than a 1/10,000 chance of saving the game, you will probably never resign too soon. Even weak players won't lose all their games, so that's a reasonable number. 

    But resigning is up to one player, and one player only. It's not up to the opponent.

    If you are U1500 here, you probably should never resign a live game. You should only resign when you know exactly how to win in the most efficient way possible and you are certain your opponent also knows that method. 

  • #10

    I resign a lot out of what I consider to be poor sportmanship (or poor something) on my part. I drop a pawn, get mad at myself, and just want to move on to the next game. It seems like torture to keep staring at that same board and fighting against the odds. But as I said, I think thats a poor quality not a good one.

  • #11

    A few says ago, I was reading through a forum about players who don't resign and just waste your time.  A GM (or IM, something like that) suggested that you use conditional moves. 

    That, of course, only works on wins which are certain.  That way, if you resign when by chance, you lose your queen to a trap, you threw away the game.  Only resign win the loss is certain.

  • #12

    Yeah, white could have used conditional moves here to draw, but instead threw the draw away and was handed it back.

  • #13


  • #14

    That wasn't the best example, I'll post the VC game that I find so infuriating...

  • #15

    I do resign often when I can see the mate. But if I can't see the mate even though I know I am going to lose, depending on my mood, I will play on. I'm only 1200-1300 so I need all the practice I can get. And since my opponents are of the same level... they too. Has nothing to do with me trying to be rude or waste time. 

  • #16

    Cool I'm resigned to reading this thread when I should be baking muffins.  

  • #17

    Here's the game: http://www.chess.com/votechess/game?id=34096


    What muffin recipe(s) do you use?


Online Now