I think that offering to play out a game that you would otherwise resign and deferring the decision to your opponent in case they'd like to play it out (as your friend did) is an incredibly conscientious and classy move.
Asking an opponent to resign, no matter the position, on the other hand is quite the opposite.
Asking me to resign would guarantee I wouldn't.
Asking me to resign would guarantee I wouldn't.
Me too. It would even enter my mind that the opponent might have an upcoming vacation and will actually lose if we play it out farther.
I think it's rude to play on in a lost position
It's interesting to hear that it's rude to play on in a lost position.
But I think people can disagree on when a position is hopelessly lost. I've even surprised myself in the past with mates I achieved even when I had much less material than my opponent. Although, perhaps having less material isn't the same as having lost the position.
Also, I've sadly amazed myself as well in games where my opponent won a stalemate even though I had overwhelmingly more material.
It can be argued that no position is ever completely lost before mate has happened.
I generally resign if I feel that my opponent has and will likely continue to outplay me, but only if I think I won't learn anything more from the game.
Chess doesn't strike me as being strictly a game of wins and losses, it's about understanding and developing (and fun of course.) To suggest to another to resign if you feel your position is superior seems a little insulting. If you know you will win eventually, the chances are that they do too, but they are still seeking potential counterplay, or alternative interesting outcomes.
I always say that I will resign when you pry my mouse from my cold, dead fingers.
When I resign depends on the level of my opponent. When blundering away pieces is common(as it is at my level and below), I tend not to resign even when the game is objectively lost until the game has simplified enough that an egregious error is unlikely from my opponent. The higher the rating of my opponent the quicker I'm likely to resign. On the flip side, I'd never suggest to my opponent that it was time for them to resign.
When I resign depends on the level of my opponent. When blundering away pieces is common(as it is at my level and below), I tend not to resign even when the game is objectively lost until the game has simplified enough that an egregious error is unlikely from my opponent. The higher the rating of my opponent the quicker I'm likely to resign. On the flip side, I'd never suggest to my opponent that it was time for them to resign.
Subject to correction. See no point in dragging on a game when it is doomed.
Might as well play another game and make the day a little livelier for both players.
It can be argued that no position is ever completely lost before mate has happened.
It can be argued that no position is ever completely lost before mate has happened.
I agree that the position is lost for black, but there is a series of legal moves that can lead to black winning. 1. Bxc6 Rxc6 and now white can play 2. Nc7+ letting the black king out of the corner, and black's rook is free to capture the white pieces for a helpmate. :)
Resigning is the appropriate action when forced mate is apparent. it is a polite recognition from the loosing player that this game is over in a matter of a few short moves no matter what they do.
I think that many players cheat themselfes out of a learning experience by resigning as soon as it becomes apparent that a long endgame is innevitable. The sad part of the situation is that endgame is still chessgame, and endgames are very hard to win by either player since obviously they were well matched initially for it to have come to endgame.
It seems that if you want to beat people at chess for which you are nearly equal in skill, that it would be smart to become very willing to grind out a lot of endgames.It annoys me endlessly when I am deprived of a good endgame when I have worked so hard to drive my opponent back. Especially, when I have worked so hard and feel barely to be winning.
I'm getting tired of players, especially in tournaments, who drag on and on thru a hopelessly lost position. Im talking endgame where opp has 1 pawn left and I've got 3 pawns, bishop, and knight, e.g. When the situation is reversed, I resign. It's just a matter of time anyhow, and what am I gonna learn? If I would have learned something earlier, I wouldn't be in this predicament, would I? I would never ask an opponent to resign, but there's no sense in dragging the game out to 55 moves, esp. in tourneys. All your doing is holding up the tourn.
I think it's rude to drag out a lost game as long as posssible, making e.g. exactly 1 move every 3 days, or whatever the time control is. I may not always resign as soon as my opponent thinks I should but I keep playing at the same pace as I did in the first place. The only time I would drag it out as long as possible is if asked/told to resign.
Asking if the your opponent wants to play the game to the very end before resigning is in my opinion a really good way of showing respect and you need respect in chess. Without it, you've already lost the game.
Of course it's rude to keep playing a game that you've already lost, BUT you always have to see the other end. Has the losing player seen a way to draw? If there is a reasonable chance for a stalemate, it's not rude to keep playing. Of course dragging with the game and only moving at the last possible moment is just stupid and kills all the fun.
Then there is the other end. People who resign too early. I hate players like that. And of course those who resign a move before mate. Sure the game is already lost, but it doesn't hurt you to make a single random move.
I once saw that I should resign, but played out the variation in question, just to make it obvious to anybody who later looks at the game why I was resigning.
Mostly I did it for myself - so I wouldn't later look and be like "wait - what the ?" and then have to go into the Notes tab to find out why.
For lower rated players like me, someone could make a huge blunder and turn the game around, in this game the other player was too focused on pushing pawns and wasn't paying attention to what i was doing
I am a newbie at online chess, but I played a game awhile back where I had 3 pawns against King, and had to play to the bitter end, even though it was obvious there was no way my opponent was even going to pull of a draw. As this game was reaching a checkmate, I began to get irritated at this situation, and when asked for a re-match, I decided that this was a road that I didn't want to travel down again. Possibly that was unfair, but that was the way I honestly felt.
In a recent game, a friend of mine posted this in the chat box --- There comes a point where the victor of any given match grows more and more apparent. I don't want to rob you of working on your endgame, but at which point is it acceptable to resign?
I responded that personally, I don't think it's ever unacceptable to resign.
While my endgame could definitely use work, I'll take the win over a long-drawn out endgame where I could possibly blunder away my advantage.
Yet, the flipside of this conundrum is when people ask me to resign in a game when they seemingly have an overwhelming advantage.
That seems both presumptuous and rude to me.
What do you think?