Resigning Attitudes - Let's Vote
Sort:
If I see an absolute simple checkmate I will resign. If it is not so aparent, I may keep playing on the chance my opponrnt didn't see what I see.
Feb 10, 2008
0
#22
A chess teacher once said that no one ever won a game by resigning. When to resign should be the decision of each player. Asking another player to resign is the bad sportsmanship, not the failure to resign. Being easily annoyed by other players doesn't show how cool you are, it shows an exaggerated sense of self-importance. A little humility and patience would not hurt anyone, and it would do our chess community a lot of good.
Bottom line on resigning: if you are playing a strong player,say a 1800+ rating,and you are being beaten to a pulp and have no real hope of winning,you are better off resigning and starting another game.They most likely won't blunder. If you are playing someone less experienced,say less than a 1400 rating,you may still have a shot at winning,because they are more apt to blunder.And if you are playing someone around a 1000 rating or less,don't give up,they most likely will blunder.
I'm a sort of mix between 4 and 5, like a 4.3. I have never resigned, though, but that's mainly because the one match I haven't won, I fought it out until a 56 move draw. But I'm not averse to the concept, and will resign if I have less than a 20% chance of winning or the other guy is very good.
i'll resign only if its really hopeless. otherwise i'll usually try to get a stalemate (if im losing that is).
but one thing: i realise that many people hate others who lose on time when their game is already a lost cause. but please try to get an explanation. it happened with me before (me being the loser) and i hope im not misunderstood. they might have really been busy.
at this level unless the game is checkmated assume NOTHING!!! lol
i am a #2-usually- i will not resign to a #6!!!
I'm probably a 4 and 5 with a hint of everything. I don't like to give up if there's any chance that I may be able to do something. Plus I am still gaining experience the more I play. I am naturaly opposed to resigning but I would if I were losing by a significant ammount and my opponent wanted me to.
I guess I resign when I feel that I can't win wich is for the most part a bad blunder.also if I can't see a stalemate in a couple of moves
Leaning more towards a 5 than a 4. Having a rating in the mid 1300's on this site, I tend to play games as deep as possible. Players at this level are always capable of a blunder that cam turn a game around, or at least a loss to a draw. I will hold off on resigning until my position gets to the hopeless point, less than a five percent chance that I will win. This is for learning purposes of not only how to close a game out, but a chance to find a game altering tactic.
Cleptomania wrote:
A chess teacher once said that no one ever won a game by resigning. When to resign should be the decision of each player. Asking another player to resign is the bad sportsmanship, not the failure to resign. Being easily annoyed by other players doesn't show how cool you are, it shows an exaggerated sense of self-importance. A little humility and patience would not hurt anyone, and it would do our chess community a lot of good.
Well said.
If I saw anyone resign with 20% chance of winning I'd think they were crazy.
Mar 31, 2008
0
#33
Once your game is lost in YOUR eyes, I feel you should resign. It is a personal matter and really does not need to be discussed amongst ones peers.
Basically, once I feel that I could consistently beat myself from the other side of the board (if that made any sense!) I would resign.
... but that's just me.
There is only one circumstance where I would be offended regarding this issue... If my opponent slowed down in a way that I felt he or she was deliberately stalling the outcome of the game once they achieved their 'lost position' I would be very annoyed. It doesn't happen often but when it does I quickly add my opponent to my ignore list.
Generally I agree with clepto. (And I agree definitely concerning face-to-face games.)
But HERE we play correspondence chess.
A game may or may not be prolonged week(s) or month(s), although the outcome is clear (remember, we all can use a program, and more important, we all have enough time to check on tactical tricks !)
If the game is dead-lost, that is, your opponent is both lost in material and position, he has no counterplay at all (in particular no chances for a perpetual check, or a stalemate), but he continues to play anyway, then you are, in my opinion, allowed to tell him that it is better to resign, and to enjoy a new game!
Unfortunately, here there are quite many players who don't understand this. This means that they either have a bad taste, or have very low rating (<1700 national, or ELO).
Mandelshtam
Mar 31, 2008
0
#35
Maybe I understand wrong...
did you call 1700 a bad rating?!
If you're over 1300 you're a half decent player ... and this isn't self serving.. I'm 1800+
Type 7, like BlueKnightShade. " I resign because the game is finished. I see no reason to continue when there is no game left, so simple is that."
I cannot understand some opponent's that I have played, they lose their queen and resign??? Because I am learning about the game, and learning on the job, so as to speak. I like to play opponent's with a higher rating than myself, even though I am almost certain to lose to them. I love watch the moves they make, the how's and why they do certain things. It's fascinating to study how they beat me. I want to see and understand, how they beat me. I want to learn what I do that allows them to beat me. Therefore if I resign before they really have won, ie: checkmate, I will never learn how to do it myself. I do thank them and apologise for not resigning at the end of the game, but when I explain why, they have all been excellent about it, allowing me to learn from their play. Plus they come back for more, so hopefully their not too bored playing with me. Slowly, albeit very slowly ,I am learning, from playing these fantastic players who have been so good in allowing me to watch and study them. One day hopefully, I will be able to give them as good as they give me now. You never know I may even win over them one day.
Thanks Guys, you know who you are.
Mar 31, 2008
0
#38
That's a great spirit queenie. Hopefully no one will ever take issue with you not resigning (if you aren't a total jerk about it :P)
I'm a mix of 2 and 4.
lh8sens:
Yes, if a player has rating <1700 , DWZ, in my country Germany (DWZ= Deutsche Wert-Zahl), it means that he has never played in an international tournament (or if he did play in some open, he never faced a player with >1900 DWZ or with international Elo >1900), so he cannot have obtained FIDE Elo.
This means (there are very few exceptions) that he never studied chess seriously. He does not understand simple positional rules, like "good/bad bishop", or "weak pawn".
Perhaps he heard things like "fast development", he sees - depending on his experience - light, or sometimes more difficult combinations - , but even in this,he will always underestimate the counterplay and the ressouces in the opponents position ...
And he will still lose often because he just forgot to castle in time...
Such a player continues "by inertia", since he might not know, that he is dead-lost.
A "good" rating starts with 1800 DWZ (or with any FIDE Elo). In that region, some players are capable of a "good day", that is, they can play some game which is even worth of rating 2000....
I do not believe that a player who has 1900 DWZ or 1900 FIDE Elo ever evaluates wrongly a dead-lost position. If he choses to continue in a dead-lost position anyway, he shows bad taste....
Once again, I am speaking about correspondance games, on this server.
What I just said, is NOT TRUE for face-to-face games with a clock.
Since after 4 hours play many of us are tired and blind, and sometimes the timetrouble of the opponent might save us....
Mandelshtam