Resigning if your Queen is going to be taken

kleelof
[COMMENT DELETED]
MrKornKid
gunz300 wrote:

I've won games after having my queen taken.  At that point I usually just go for broke and sometimes catch for opponent over extending their position.  I see nothing wrong with resigning if a game is truly lost though.

This. /\

kleelof

Wasn't there some little game FIscher played where he lost his queen early on and won?

JamieDelarosa
tumblingtom66 wrote:

If you lose your queen and don't resign, you're a jackass imo.

Look up "Legal's Trap."

MrKornKid

I forget who kleelof but yes and he windmillded that shit out of it.

JamieDelarosa

I think you might be referring to "The Game of the Century."

Donald Byrne vs Bobby Fischer (aged 13)

Rosenwald Memorial Tournament, 1956

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_the_Century_%28chess%29

kleelof

I suppose someone will point out that he sacked that queen, not lost it.

kleelof
JamieDelarosa wrote:

I think you might be referring to "The Game of the Century."

Donald Byrne vs Bobby Fischer (aged 13)

Rosenwald Memorial Tournament, 1956

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_the_Century_%28chess%29

Right. With a name like that, you'd think I'd have remembered it.

Are you still mourning Jamie?

Pulpofeira

Last year a teammate lost his queen for a bishop of the opponent due to a pin. He continued the game and few moves later he forked the opponent's K and Q with his knight. Something like in Searching for Bobby Fischer. Since he was a piece up, he won the game. In a level where you are able to leave your queen hanging, is not crazy to expect the opponent could do the same, although not expected.

JamieDelarosa
kleelof wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:

I think you might be referring to "The Game of the Century."

Donald Byrne vs Bobby Fischer (aged 13)

Rosenwald Memorial Tournament, 1956

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_the_Century_%28chess%29

Right. With a name like that, you'd think I'd have remembered it.

Are you still mourning Jamie?

RJC??

kleelof wrote:

I suppose someone will point out that he sacked that queen, not lost it.

During the game, that depends on which player's point of view ;^)

Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.

DragonWhisperer

RG1951 wrote:

        In most circumstances, loss of one's Queen will lead to defeat, if it means a significant material disadvantage (it will not always do so - the player losing his Queen may be a long way ahead on material at that point). Speaking personally, I don't see that you are likely to learn much or gain from sodiering on to the end with such a handicap. I am too sore a loser to tolerate such a situation and will resign instead. Having said this, I have won by Queen sacrifices before.

You can learn something perseverance it is a great characteristic to have

aqeelsyed

If you lose queen early on and most of other pieces are still out there. Then never resign. As, your opponent can be at same level at which you are. And will definitely leave his queen hanging at some point if you keep calm. That's the point of chess. It's a game of nerve, if you keep calm, nobody, at your level or even a bit higher,c beat you. But if you are at a point where defeat is evident (queen or no queen doesn't matter), the most respectable way to lose is resign

aqeelsyed

I have experienced a lot that trap here is that the person who loses the queen assumes that he's lost, and plays the remainder game half heartedly. And the opponent plays with double heart, and automatic assumption of winning. You can use his overconfidence to your benefit. He'll definitely make overconfident blunders after taking your queen cheaply

SanDeity

Check out this #chess game: CarlosTenango vs SanDeity - https://www.chess.com/live/game/4142937821

Suggo

Play the game out if you want to, there is no disrespect in doing so under any circumstances if you ask me.  The points they earn is payment enough.

varelse1

Here is a 1400 player, won the queen from a grandmaster.

m_connors

About a year ago my opponent blundered his Queen and did not resign. I was really surprised, as the position was quite simply. I thought, "A-ha, I have you now!" Then three moves later, I blundered my Queen!! Even worse, if that's possible, since now the position was even simpler! A comedy of errors I was lucky enough to win.

So, I wouldn't say you would need to automatically resign. The position most likely answers that question. As my example shows, we each blundered our Queens and neither resigned. 

AdorablePapaya

I will play a blitz game out until I am about to be checkmated, playing at players of my level it is possible to come back in a blitz game even after being a piece down.  If you are new to chess, games at that level can go back and forth so if you want to keep playing on hoping for a blunder from your opponent than it's up to you.  Once you get to a higher level under standard time controls its almost impossible to come back after being down significant material, and the chance of your opponent blundering stalemate will be slim to none, there will be nothing to play for so I would resign at that point.