I agree with Cheater. Why resign ?
Resignation Etiquette
Sort:
I looked at some games that if the resign side had their way I should have resigned. Out of 10 3 were draws, 2 were stalemates, 3 were victories for me, 2 were losses. Never Never Never Never Never Resign.
Aug 12, 2008
0
#25
I agree that in some optimal game theory sense that resigning is always suboptimal. I also find it annoying at times when someone presses on in a hopeless position -- but that is their perogative if they choose. Is it rude or a breach of etiquette? Sometimes (particularly when a player is strong enough to know better), though often it's simply someone trying to learn something from watching a stronger player's technique.
My rule of thumb against stronger players is: (1) If the colors were reversed, (2) I got a new opponent rated as far below me as the actual opponent is rated above me, and (3) I feel I would easily win under those conditons, then I resign. Against equally strong players I apply a similar calculus. Against weaker players, I'll hang on and try for some counterplay/trap/swindle as long as there's a reasonable possibility or it doesn't get rude or obnoxious. The weaker the opponent, the lower I set the bar for my sense of what's rude/obnoxious.
I usually resign pretty easily (i.e. down a piece in the endgame with pawns and no counterplay or practical drwing chances, sometimes not even that low of an advantage for the opponent). It just depends on your willingness to not lose. I always strive for a win and if my opponent outplays me by a lot, I will respect them by resigning should I have no practical chances of winning or drawing. I am O.K with those who don't resign. It just gives me a chance to practice my technique and to analyze a loss should I blunder like that bishop versus Queen and bishop endgame, like "what psychological pressure made me blunder?" or something like that. I don't like losing, but am more interested in showing good sportsmanship, and maybe learning a thing or two than winning.
*Edit* Plus, I HATE playing games that are lost. It makes me feel sad to play on when I feel the inevitable is coming.
dwaxe wrote:
Don't be stupid, you should resign if you are sure that if you were playing the opposite side, you could beat even a grandmaster.
I agree with this one
I once resigned for having a cramped position and being 2 pawns down. my opponent didn't thought I would resign and when I gave him my hand smilling he told me surprised why don't you continue? I told him, you played better and you won, he smiled and took my hand.
I DO NOT REGRET IT!
i wonder how many on-line chessers 1500+ could draw a Q&K vs. K endgame in real life with or without time. i bet more than would be expected.
Cheater_1 is right... if there is any hope, use it.
If there is not any hope ask yourself if playing on is likely to throw your opponent off and give you a chance to win. As "unsportsman" like as that may sound it doesn't stop players of other sports from continuing to fight even when everything seems against them, even when the games result is impossible to be anything but a loss.
With that said, it is the players choice to resign when ever they wish.
But people that say that a player should resign as soon as the position is lost should probably resign before even making a move if they were to ever play a grand master. Now how much fun would that be?
I've rescued myself from some pretty tough situations, but I will resign a game that I don't feel like working my way out of. I'll definately be more frugal with my resignations in the future. Thanks for the pointer!
eternal21 wrote:
The fact that this was written by cheater_1, should really open some people's eyes - this is the same guy that has no problem cheating...
By the same logic, if Cheater_1 posts that we should all do charitable works in our lives, should we then refuse to do so? How about if Cheater_1 posts to declare he's an organ donor? Cheater_1 posting for human rights?
As a rule of thumb, if the logic of your argument cannot be applied across obvious examples, your logic is flawed.
neospooky wrote:
eternal21 wrote:
The fact that this was written by cheater_1, should really open some people's eyes - this is the same guy that has no problem cheating... By the same logic, if Cheater_1 posts that we should all do charitable works in our lives, should we then refuse to do so? How about if Cheater_1 posts to declare he's an organ donor? Cheater_1 posting for human rights?
Get back to me when he does that. My logic is sound based on his track record so far, while you are the one coming up with silly 'what-if' scenarios.
'What if' the Sun doesn't rise tomorrow? Trust me - it will.
Resign when it is the last move before mate... hehe
exigentsky wrote:
chessmates wrote:
Why should anyone resign because his opponent wantsm him to do so? It is the fighting spirit that keeps the game live!!Try to win till you lose!! It isn't because your opponent wants you to, it's because it's unnecessary and futile. In fact, if my opponent told me to resign, I'd play on till mate. He has no right to interfere like that.
you're talking through your hat.
I am rather amazed by the incongruent rationalizing that some players possess with regard to their own game.
There are times to resign and times to play on. Seldom do the two intersect. It is more acceptable to play on when playing in person, face to face. When playing communication chess (online) where there are timelines and multiple games being played simultaneously, better to resign and move on to the next game...
I always resign when I'm down more than two pawns during a full moon in a month without an "r" if my opponent has more than four letters in his or her first name. In all other situations, I make my decisions based on the particular circumstances at that moment, including just a gut feeling of whether I can accomplish something against this person.
eternal21 wrote:
neospooky wrote:
eternal21 wrote:
The fact that this was written by cheater_1, should really open some people's eyes - this is the same guy that has no problem cheating... By the same logic, if Cheater_1 posts that we should all do charitable works in our lives, should we then refuse to do so? How about if Cheater_1 posts to declare he's an organ donor? Cheater_1 posting for human rights? Get back to me when he does that. My logic is sound based on his track record so far, while you are the one coming up with silly 'what-if' scenarios. 'What if' the Sun doesn't rise tomorrow? Trust me - it will.
Oh, my mistake. I forgot the 'ignorant dismissal' argument that negates the entire study of philosophy and rhetoric.
shhr wrote:
exigentsky wrote:
chessmates wrote:
Why should anyone resign because his opponent wantsm him to do so? It is the fighting spirit that keeps the game live!!Try to win till you lose!! It isn't because your opponent wants you to, it's because it's unnecessary and futile. In fact, if my opponent told me to resign, I'd play on till mate. He has no right to interfere like that. you're talking through your hat.
You offer such great wisdom and a convincing eloquent argument.
I prefer to resign before being checkmated. It suggests to me and my opponent that I didn't see it coming. On the otherhand, if I can win by checkmate, I feel as if I deserve some bonus points!