What if that noble pawn was holding your whole position together? your position would collapse shortly after 
Resigning games after losing one pawn. Competitiveness or bad attitude?
Sort:
checkmateisnear wrote:
What if that noble pawn was holding your whole position together? your position would collapse shortly after
Again that would be one of those times where if it was a casual game I might not feel like playing. But in a more serious situation by putting up as tough a defense as you can you force your opponent to prove that he can actually win it. But long defense can often wear an opponent down who thought the win would be easy, and vice versa if the defender has no fighting spirit. I truly believe this will save plenty of positions until you get really high up.
johnanna wrote:
Agreed, in chess there is no moral imperative to "fight to the last". There is also nothing that compels you to give up.
I like Silman's advice. To paraphase, if you are the lower ranked player, never resign. Use it as an opportunity to learn from the experience.
Precisely. I remember many years ago I played against a much stronger player, who won one of my knights in the middlegame. I played on until I saw that I would be checkmated on the next move. My opponent refused to shake my congratulatory hand, claiming that it was discourteous of me not to resign right after losing the knight - as if I were some kind of mosquito refusing to bug off!
Jan 25, 2010
0
#25
orangehonda wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
This is one of the silliest ongoing, multiple posted threads I've ever seen. It's so simple: people resign when they don't feel like playing any more. Duh.
So, why waste energy wondering what motivates people to resign or not...there are lots of threads on this topic that I've seen here over the months. In the end we all play for our reasons and purposes. If you guys are really, I mean REALLY sitting around wondering about a chess player's motivations for resigning you'd be better off finding a discussion group somewhere relating to sports psychology and/or therapy.
Again, Here people resign when they don't feel like playing any more. If you want to know WHY the they don't want to play anymore I think the answers are pretty obvious, but you'll never really know the answer for any particular indivdual. That is unless they truthfully tell you why.
Check out this link if you're truely interested in this topic:
http://www.poolchat.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5338&pid=26060&mode=threaded&show=&st=0
Actually I think people resign based on how they assess the position and what they believe their chances are.
I've had tourney games where I didn't feel like playing (health, poor results, etc) but continued to play anyway -- your quick and judgemental approach gave you a pretty poor answer.
Not a surprise as you also miss the OP's question entirely which has to do with how objective it is to continue a game when down material not personal motivations / psychology for resignation.
Excuse me but I didn't miss his point, rather I'm pointing out trying to get a specific answer to his question of "why" people resign after loosing pawn, or whatever, falls under the heading of sports psychology and is quite a wast of time and to me smacks of being a basic "busy body". Why not just let people's personal motivations alone and let them wrestle with their own angels and demons. Besides, this topic has been explored AD NASEUM in numerous other threads. And regarding ELBUS and others who have various rationals for why and when people "SHOULD" continue I say shut up and keep obnoxious opinions to yourself. People play for their OWN REASONS that are often not the same as YOUR reasons. I know that this basic idea that people are not motivated by the same things that you and your little world view find important is hard to swallow, but it really is true.
polydiatonic wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
This is one of the silliest ongoing, multiple posted threads I've ever seen. It's so simple: people resign when they don't feel like playing any more. Duh.
So, why waste energy wondering what motivates people to resign or not...there are lots of threads on this topic that I've seen here over the months. In the end we all play for our reasons and purposes. If you guys are really, I mean REALLY sitting around wondering about a chess player's motivations for resigning you'd be better off finding a discussion group somewhere relating to sports psychology and/or therapy.
Again, Here people resign when they don't feel like playing any more. If you want to know WHY the they don't want to play anymore I think the answers are pretty obvious, but you'll never really know the answer for any particular indivdual. That is unless they truthfully tell you why.
Check out this link if you're truely interested in this topic:
http://www.poolchat.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5338&pid=26060&mode=threaded&show=&st=0
Actually I think people resign based on how they assess the position and what they believe their chances are.
I've had tourney games where I didn't feel like playing (health, poor results, etc) but continued to play anyway -- your quick and judgemental approach gave you a pretty poor answer.
Not a surprise as you also miss the OP's question entirely which has to do with how objective it is to continue a game when down material not personal motivations / psychology for resignation.
Excuse me but I didn't miss his point, rather I'm pointing out trying to get a specific answer to his question of "why" people resign after loosing pawn, or whatever, falls under the heading of sports psychology and is quite a wast of time and to me smacks of being a basic "busy body". Why not just let people's personal motivations alone and let them wrestle with their own angels and demons. Besides, this topic has been explored AD NASEUM in numerous other threads. And regarding ELBUS and others who have various rationals for why and when people "SHOULD" continue I say shut up and keep obnoxious opinions to yourself. People play for their OWN REASONS that are often not the same as YOUR reasons. I know that this basic idea that people are not motivated by the same things that you and your little world view find important is hard to swallow, but it really is true.
I don't know what your problem is and why you try to be rude. What I said is a good piece of advice to anybody, because there are some people who really do think that if they lose a pawn it's so hopeless there's no point of continuing, which is simply not true. You need more fighting spirit than that to do well, because you also need to have tenacity to win winning positions that are not so easy to win.
What if I said you should never resign if you're just slightly worse, would that be an obnoxious opinion too? A pawn is just too low of an advantage to immediately quit, most chess players would agree. Do you resign if you're down a piece? That's more of a choice, but lets just say if you usually resign right away when you're a pawn down you're really doing your opponent a favor and then in every game you're never far from losing because you resign as soon as something doesn't go your way!
Jan 25, 2010
0
#27
I don't know what your problem is and why you try to be rude. What I said is a good piece of advice to anybody, because there are some people who really do think that if they lose a pawn it's so hopeless there's no point of continuing, which is simply not true. You need more fighting spirit than that to do well, because you also need to have tenacity to win winning positions that are not so easy to win.
What if I said you should never resign if you're just slightly worse, would that be an obnoxious opinion too? A pawn is just too low of an advantage to immediately quit, most chess players would agree. Do you resign if you're down a piece? That's more of a choice, but lets just say if you usually resign right away when you're a pawn down you're really doing your opponent a favor and then in every game you're never far from losing because you resign as soon as something doesn't go your way!
Yes, your "new" advice would be obnoxious too because as I pointed out not everybody plays for the same reason as you assume that they do. Maybe they're not concerned with squeezing out every ounce of knowledge from "chessic tree of wisdom" from every game they play, so they resign rather than struggle for a draw. Who knows why people resign? And, that's my point.
Your ASSUMPTION seems to be that everybody SHOULD be trying to accomplish with their games what YOU are trying to, or infer that you're trying to, accomplish with YOUR games.
Your advice is NOT a good piece of advice to "anyone" as you say. It is only a good piece (maybe) of advice to people who resign for the specific reasons that you give. Who the hell are you to say who needs "more fighting spirit" and who doesn't. That's what is getting me teed up. You just continue to assume that everyone here is motivated by the same little things that YOU are. And I can tell you, without a doubt and 100% certainty that you are wrong in that belief. How am I so sure? I'm so sure because your paradigm (look it up if you need to) does not apply to me. And, if doesn't apply to me then there are most likely many, many others for whom it also does not apply.
My advice, if you care, is to avoid using the word "SHOULD" because if you're not very careful about it COULD become annoying and, yes, obnoxious. Most anyplace you might want to say "should", try "could" instead and watch how your language will by necessity become more subtle and generally helpful. Afterall we're not talking about life or death here, like: "you should get out of the way of that beer truck". It's more like: "you could try to see if you can turn a pawn down position into an equal position"....
If you're just playing for fun there's never a reason to resign, losing shouldn't concern you, it's just about playing the game for the sake of playing the game
Jan 25, 2010
0
#29
JP_8 wrote:
If you're just playing for fun there's never a reason to resign, losing shouldn't concern you, it's just about playing the game for the sake of playing the game
Jp: For you it's "just about playing the game for the sake of playing the game". For me and others in can be something quite different. I'm finding myself suprised at how linear and closed minded many of the comments in this thread have been. It's like people have their own perspective, and that's that. So few here seem to be able to understand that we are not all mindless servile automotons functioning under identical programing. Maybe the issue here is that people just don't know how to write effectively. Either that or they're just really closed minded. I don't know, but I find it both irritating and disheartening.
Are there really that many people here who resign when they are down a pawn ? In blitz I don't see a lot of this, in fact I often see players whose ratings suggest they are not beginners playing on without a major piece.
sometimes I resign when my position is collapsing, before I've even lost a pawn.
polydiatonic wrote:
I don't know what your problem is and why you try to be rude. What I said is a good piece of advice to anybody, because there are some people who really do think that if they lose a pawn it's so hopeless there's no point of continuing, which is simply not true. You need more fighting spirit than that to do well, because you also need to have tenacity to win winning positions that are not so easy to win.
What if I said you should never resign if you're just slightly worse, would that be an obnoxious opinion too? A pawn is just too low of an advantage to immediately quit, most chess players would agree. Do you resign if you're down a piece? That's more of a choice, but lets just say if you usually resign right away when you're a pawn down you're really doing your opponent a favor and then in every game you're never far from losing because you resign as soon as something doesn't go your way!
Yes, your "new" advice would be obnoxious too because as I pointed out not everybody plays for the same reason as you assume that they do. Maybe they're not concerned with squeezing out every ounce of knowledge from "chessic tree of wisdom" from every game they play, so they resign rather than struggle for a draw. Who knows why people resign? And, that's my point.
Your ASSUMPTION seems to be that everybody SHOULD be trying to accomplish with their games what YOU are trying to, or infer that you're trying to, accomplish with YOUR games.
Your advice is NOT a good piece of advice to "anyone" as you say. It is only a good piece (maybe) of advice to people who resign for the specific reasons that you give. Who the hell are you to say who needs "more fighting spirit" and who doesn't. That's what is getting me teed up. You just continue to assume that everyone here is motivated by the same little things that YOU are. And I can tell you, without a doubt and 100% certainty that you are wrong in that belief. How am I so sure? I'm so sure because your paradigm (look it up if you need to) does not apply to me. And, if doesn't apply to me then there are most likely many, many others for whom it also does not apply.
My advice, if you care, is to avoid using the word "SHOULD" because if you're not very careful about it COULD become annoying and, yes, obnoxious. Most anyplace you might want to say "should", try "could" instead and watch how your language will by necessity become more subtle and generally helpful. Afterall we're not talking about life or death here, like: "you should get out of the way of that beer truck". It's more like: "you could try to see if you can turn a pawn down position into an equal position"....
I'll tell you what my advice applies to. It applies to what I know from experience whether or not you have reasonable chances to tough it out down a pawn, which for me is an absolute yes. I know very well that I'm making assumptions that one doesn't have much fighting spirit if they don't play on ever when down a pawn, however it's a very reasonable one. If they don't care that much about chess, then whatever they don't have to follow my advice but all I'm really saying is that people should not think losing a pawn is automatically losing the game, and if you want to debate me on that go ahead. I know I said "should", yes I know that, and it was no mistake, because whether a pawn is worth fighting on or not is hardly even debatable (but again you can debate me on it if you really want to and I would be glad to).
Absolutely, if people have different motivations other than "I feel hopeless" then it wouldn't apply to them, and I too resign games where I'm not down alot but just don't feel like playing that day and it's not a serious game. But I strongly suspect that if someone is posting about it then it's not just that they don't feel like playing on, because then there would be no point in this thread, NO?
I don't think it's the pawn as such, it's what the pawn represents at the particular time.
Hell, I gambit pawns in the opening. But, in some cases, the captured pawn is the only chance for a result, then by all means resign.
I guess what I'm trying to say, sometimes I will resign when I lose a pawn, sometimes I'll play on when I lose a queen.
Jan 26, 2010
0
#34
Elubas wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
I don't know what your problem is and why you try to be rude. What I said is a good piece of advice to anybody, because there are some people who really do think that if they lose a pawn it's so hopeless there's no point of continuing, which is simply not true. You need more fighting spirit than that to do well, because you also need to have tenacity to win winning positions that are not so easy to win.
What if I said you should never resign if you're just slightly worse, would that be an obnoxious opinion too? A pawn is just too low of an advantage to immediately quit, most chess players would agree. Do you resign if you're down a piece? That's more of a choice, but lets just say if you usually resign right away when you're a pawn down you're really doing your opponent a favor and then in every game you're never far from losing because you resign as soon as something doesn't go your way!
Yes, your "new" advice would be obnoxious too because as I pointed out not everybody plays for the same reason as you assume that they do. Maybe they're not concerned with squeezing out every ounce of knowledge from "chessic tree of wisdom" from every game they play, so they resign rather than struggle for a draw. Who knows why people resign? And, that's my point.
Your ASSUMPTION seems to be that everybody SHOULD be trying to accomplish with their games what YOU are trying to, or infer that you're trying to, accomplish with YOUR games.
Your advice is NOT a good piece of advice to "anyone" as you say. It is only a good piece (maybe) of advice to people who resign for the specific reasons that you give. Who the hell are you to say who needs "more fighting spirit" and who doesn't. That's what is getting me teed up. You just continue to assume that everyone here is motivated by the same little things that YOU are. And I can tell you, without a doubt and 100% certainty that you are wrong in that belief. How am I so sure? I'm so sure because your paradigm (look it up if you need to) does not apply to me. And, if doesn't apply to me then there are most likely many, many others for whom it also does not apply.
My advice, if you care, is to avoid using the word "SHOULD" because if you're not very careful about it COULD become annoying and, yes, obnoxious. Most anyplace you might want to say "should", try "could" instead and watch how your language will by necessity become more subtle and generally helpful. Afterall we're not talking about life or death here, like: "you should get out of the way of that beer truck". It's more like: "you could try to see if you can turn a pawn down position into an equal position"....
I'll tell you what my advice applies to. It applies to what I know from experience whether or not you have reasonable chances to tough it out down a pawn, which for me is an absolute yes. I know very well that I'm making assumptions that one doesn't have much fighting spirit if they don't play on ever when down a pawn, however it's a very reasonable one. If they don't care that much about chess, then whatever they don't have to follow my advice but all I'm really saying is that people should not think losing a pawn is automatically losing the game, and if you want to debate me on that go ahead. I know I said "should", yes I know that, and it was no mistake, because whether a pawn is worth fighting on or not is hardly even debatable (but again you can debate me on it if you really want to and I would be glad to).
Absolutely, if people have different motivations other than "I feel hopeless" then it wouldn't apply to them, and I too resign games where I'm not down alot but just don't feel like playing that day and it's not a serious game. But I strongly suspect that if someone is posting about it then it's not just that they don't feel like playing on, because then there would be no point in this thread, NO?
Class Player vs Expert: I'll go with the expert's advice.
polydiatonic wrote:
JP_8 wrote:
If you're just playing for fun there's never a reason to resign, losing shouldn't concern you, it's just about playing the game for the sake of playing the game
Jp: For you it's "just about playing the game for the sake of playing the game". For me and others in can be something quite different. I'm finding myself suprised at how linear and closed minded many of the comments in this thread have been. It's like people have their own perspective, and that's that. So few here seem to be able to understand that we are not all mindless servile automotons functioning under identical programing. Maybe the issue here is that people just don't know how to write effectively. Either that or they're just really closed minded. I don't know, but I find it both irritating and disheartening.
lol it has nothing to do with a closed mind, it has to do with how many chances you have when you lost a solid pawn and if it's worth resigning. If some people don't want to fight that out then ok, but I would just say to that that you're making it too easy for your opponent so it's not a good idea if you want to become a good or great chess player; fighting spirit is a big chunk of what makes them. It may appear that GM's have no fighting spirit when they do in fact resign some pawn down positions (I don't even think they do it that much) but that simply means that, no matter how well they play, because GM level is so high it will give the stronger side very few problems and to them winning the position would be as easy as mating with two queens vs bare king.
Just think of my posts as me saying my opinion that a pawn can be hard to convert (sometimes even if won for nothing), therefore resigning every time will miss you out on some points. A chess player can take that anyway they want. If they just want to enjoy winning and hate playing in poor positions, they could resign then but that would usually do awful in a tournament. I'm not saying they'll probably win the game, but a draw is not unlikely at all in many cases, add to that the psychology of how difficult a position is to break down and lots could happen anywhere at amateur level.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like people to play out super lost positions, just being a pawn down is not one of them. In fact I tend to be one of those people who start out with an edge but against strong opponents it's hard to convert it into as much as a full win.
Schachgeek wrote:
Reb wrote:
Among strong GMs an extra pawn is often a won game and in some positions its an "easy win" for the GM with the extra pawn. Thats why they sometimes resign when only a pawn down. The stronger a player is the smaller advantage he needs to win.......
he, or she.
Good grief man, when writing about individuals, it is perfectly acceptable to pick one sex and stick with it. There is little more annoying than reading something full of he/she.
I do realize though that you're just taking every opportunity presented to get a little dig in at Reb because he hurt your poor, tender feelings.
Jan 26, 2010
0
#37
and this was made known to you by his use of the word he rather than she? you've really got him pegged. oh wait? him or her?! HIM OR HER?!
Jan 26, 2010
0
#38
For the sake of others I've erased most of your last post before replying here. It is the first part of your last paragraph that is interesting. I put the part that I couldn't decipher in parenthesis. It seemed like you were trying to get at something, but I couldn't get there with you. Sorry, I tried.
The point is that if people are resigning down a pawn it's obviously more a sports psychology issue than anything else. So, I reiterate my point, which I'll try to clarify presently. If people are quitting in games, having lost a pawn, that might be held or even won, then the reason for quitting is most likely a psychologial/emotional core issue concerning the basic reason why they are playing to begin with. So, perhaps, if they're perfectionists, as many people are, and become disgusted with themselves for hanging a pawn their self esteem plummets and they get angry with themselves and quit.
So when you make some paternalistic remark about how they need more "fighting spirit" that is pointless. Telling someone that they need more fighting spirit is going to be interpreted as telling them that there's something wrong with the fighting spirit that they already have. For some of these people they have TOO MUCH of this already and just want to off themselves, figuritively, for playing weakly. Like a Klingon who fails in battle and wants honorable death or something. For someone struggeling with this as a core issue your "stiff upper lip" meme is only going to make things worse.
I think the people who might you might actually benefit from your advice are the people who don't seem to understand that when down a pawn, playing for a draw is a good goal. Many of the posters here seem to think that winning and loosing are the only options. I've seen a lot of commets about how winning is still the main goal. Of course there's nothing wrong with that should position and opportunity warrant it. However many of these posters don't seem to know that there is a middle ground such as looking for Bishops of opposite color drawing or other types of positions, etc... It's obvious that we're dealing with a lot of novices here.
My issue with your comments continues to be a very basic one. Simply put, you make assumptions regarding why people do what the do without having the foggiest notion of whether or not you are correct. Open your horizons is all I'm really saying. Sorry if I got too strident in my reactions to your earlier posts.
Absolutely, if people have different motivations other than "I feel hopeless" then it wouldn't apply to them, and I too resign games where I'm not down alot but just don't feel like playing that day and it's not a serious game. (But I strongly suspect that if someone is posting about it then it's not just that they don't feel like playing on, because then there would be no point in this thread, NO?)
polydiatonic wrote:
For the sake of others I've erased most of your last post before replying here. It is the first part of your last paragraph that is interesting. I put the part that I couldn't decipher in parenthesis. It seemed like you were trying to get at something, but I couldn't get there with you. Sorry, I tried.
The point is that if people are resigning down a pawn it's obviously more a sports psychology issue than anything else. So, I reiterate my point, which I'll try to clarify presently. If people are quitting in games, having lost a pawn, that might be held or even won, then the reason for quitting is most likely a psychologial/emotional core issue concerning the basic reason why they are playing to begin with. So, perhaps, if they're perfectionists, as many people are, and become disgusted with themselves for hanging a pawn their self esteem plummets and they get angry with themselves and quit.
So when you make some paternalistic remark about how they need more "fighting spirit" that is pointless. Telling someone that they need more fighting spirit is going to be interpreted as telling them that there's something wrong with the fighting spirit that they already have. For some of these people they have TOO MUCH of this already and just want to off themselves, figuritively, for playing weakly. Like a Klingon who fails in battle and wants honorable death or something. For someone struggeling with this as a core issue your "stiff upper lip" meme is only going to make things worse.
I think the people who might you might actually benefit from your advice are the people who don't seem to understand that when down a pawn, playing for a draw is a good goal. Many of the posters here seem to think that winning and loosing are the only options. I've seen a lot of commets about how winning is still the main goal. Of course there's nothing wrong with that should position and opportunity warrant it. However many of these posters don't seem to know that there is a middle ground such as looking for Bishops of opposite color drawing or other types of positions, etc... It's obvious that we're dealing with a lot of novices here.
My issue with your comments continues to be a very basic one. Simply put, you make assumptions regarding why people do what the do without having the foggiest notion of whether or not you are correct. Open your horizons is all I'm really saying. Sorry if I got too strident in my reactions to your earlier posts.
Absolutely, if people have different motivations other than "I feel hopeless" then it wouldn't apply to them, and I too resign games where I'm not down alot but just don't feel like playing that day and it's not a serious game. (But I strongly suspect that if someone is posting about it then it's not just that they don't feel like playing on, because then there would be no point in this thread, NO?)
Well, do you really think people need to tell someone that it's just because they don't care enough to fight on? They would know that themselves. What they might not know is their chances to draw or win pawn down positions and if it's really resignable to one trying to get the best result.
Whether a pawn is winning in a certain position or not, it should be played out by anybody below master at least. Anything could happen. Maybe they screw up in the middle game complications, maybe their technique isn't quite good enough. If you can put up a really good defense, it often takes a lot of technique to break down the defense if it's possible. Even GM's I bet play out most pawn down positions unless maybe it's nearing a technical position that is known to be easily winning or something. I'm not saying it's always going to work out, but probably you will get enough favorable results that it would be worth not resigning.
That is if you're trying to get a good result of course. There have been times where I have lost a pawn in a game and it was so annoying that I didn't feel like playing. If it was in a tournament game though, I would hold on as hard as I could.