resignation
Sort:
Feb 18, 2008
0
#2
If I know I am losing and think it unlikely my opponent will muck it up then I resign. If I think I can swindle a daw or think myy opponent might make a mistake then I'll play on.
anyone elses thought? But sharukin i don't think you should ever resign because they could quite easily not have time to go on the PC and then in any losing or winning position you COULD still get a win!
Yes but what do you gain from that they probably be annoyed at you for going for such a cheap victory and you only gain undeserved points if you win.
To me it is all relative. I resigned from 10 games at one time because I wanted a fresh start. This site for me is a place where I practice. If I take the game for what it is, a game and play it in a manner that is both entertaining and educational, then what does a win achieve? Hubris, ego and pride are what most people loose to in the end. Just have fun and learn, and try to avoid blunders.
I agree with Pawnsolo.....I'm here to have fun, learn, and correspond with others who enjoy chess as much as I do. However, when I do resign it is because I'm usually down material (-2 or more pt.'s) and lack any kind of positional advantage to either mate or recoupe lost material. You play enough chess and you become very aware when you are sitting on a "loser".....Though I will say: I have offered a few draws because I was too lazy to play out a winning end-game. Oh well, it's all for fun anyway:->
I agree with Sharukin.It's a good sportsmanship, in my oppinion, to resign if you think that you cannot win. Shurly nobody likes to waste time playing a 'doomed' game.
chessman_calum wrote:
when people resign I look at their games and wonder why they resign. If they resign with 3 moves still to go to then the opponent could still win on time so u should go on to the end! what does everyone else think?
Refusing to resign a completely lost game and instead waiting out your opponent and hope they lose on time is just petty and shows really bad sportsmanship.
Feb 19, 2008
0
#9
chessman_calum wrote: anyone elses thought? But sharukin i don't think you should ever resign because they could quite easily not have time to go on the PC and then in any losing or winning position you COULD still get a win!
That would depend on the time controls. If it is a one day a move game then there is a chance my opponent will timeout. If he has seven days though, that is a different matter.
I had a guy resigned on me lately when i least expected it. I was rook-knight and he was rook-rook but I had about 3 extra pawns. In the real game it is a matter of respect for the opponent because most times you should not rely on his mistakes to let YOU win, but good moves to make you win.
If you realise he won't make mistakes, and you are in a position to resign, then resign.
Feb 19, 2008
0
#11
I tend to think that if someone is really in a winning position, holding on hoping that they make a mistake is a waste of time. Even if you somehow manage a comeback, you deserved to lose in the first place, so it would be a hollow victory.
chessman_calum wrote: anyone elses thought? But sharukin i don't think you should ever resign because they could quite easily not have time to go on the PC and then in any losing or winning position you COULD still get a win!
If played out every game I ever resigned I might be a mere 10-15 rating pionts higher but I probably would've wasted a few hundred hours of my life. Definately not worth it. It is bad sportsmanship anyways.
if i'm winning one game and losing another, and i'm very sure i will not be able to win or draw the lost game, i resign so my rating will be lower so when i win the other game my rating increases by a higher amount
Feb 19, 2008
0
#14
chessman-- i used to be in the same boat you are, in disbelief that people would "give up" instead of fighting to the end of a chess match. now that i have a few more online games under my belt, i've begun to understand why resigning occurs. have you ever been clearly up in material, maybe king-rook-pawn against king-pawn, or in a forced mate scenario where waiting around won't change the game result? waiting around for your win is a tiresome use of time. if nothing else, resigning seems to be a sign of respect that your opponent has won (or you've beaten them, depending on perspective), and much less a dishonorable sign of weakness. i think that's the jist of what some other people are saying too, but i'm sure they could give some more experienced wisdom to you, as well :)
Ya, what they said. When I started playing as a kid, I wanted to see if my opponent good beat me with a king-rook vs. my king. Now I am older and if I know damn well from my opponent's skill level that they can beat me, resigning just makes sense.
when people resign I look at their games and wonder why they resign. If they resign with 3 moves still to go to then the opponent could still win on time so u should go on to the end! what does everyone else think?