was it bullet?
Resigning is stupid.
Sort:
Jul 13, 2021
0
#3
Rather than ascribing the resignation to “stupid logic,” perhaps consider that many people hold an ethic that the right thing to do is to resign when you recognize that you lost, whether or not the opponent blunders an easy mate. For some, it is more important to win because of one’s own play rather than hold out for the silly hope that an opponent misses the defeat you handed them.
Jul 13, 2021
0
#4
You’re ascribing a ethos to a random chess player that may not actually be the case, they’re reasoning could be something completely different
Jul 13, 2021
0
#5
ChunkyDot wrote:
how can one resign just on the basis of assumption that opponent knows how to win the particular position, stupid logic.
How can you be sure you're playing a chess game? You could be a brain in a jar and your entire life is a hallucination. You can't possibly know that anyone exists other than yourself. So how can one make such a topic on the basis of assumption that reality-as-he-knows-it exists? Stupid logic.
ChunkyDot wrote:
I just played a game here, and my opponent resigned when he was subjected to an unstoppable mate in 1, yes it was an obvious mate in 1 and easy one at that, and there was no way my opponent could save the game, so obviously he was gonna lose. But my point is why resign? How can he be so sure that I will actually play the mate in 1, I could hallucinate, I could blunder, there are tonnes of such possibility, how can one resign just on the basis of assumption that opponent knows how to win the particular position, stupid logic.
He is showing u respect by resigning, he is showing that he thinks u are good enough to not miss a mate in 1
it is that SOME PEOPLE DOES NOT WANT TO WIN BY A BLUNDER
Yes, an opponent can't find mate in one if he or she played chess that made it possible.
ChunkyDot wrote:
I just played a game here, and my opponent resigned when he was subjected to an unstoppable mate in 1, yes it was an obvious mate in 1 and easy one at that, and there was no way my opponent could save the game, so obviously he was gonna lose. But my point is why resign? How can he be so sure that I will actually play the mate in 1, I could hallucinate, I could blunder, there are tonnes of such possibility, how can one resign just on the basis of assumption that opponent knows how to win the particular position, stupid logic.
I think enjoyability (or lack thereof) of the game might have something to do with resignation. If I am down a piece and have nothing for it and have nothing to play for, then, like I said, I have nothing to play for, right? If we're thinking logically... lol
Jul 13, 2021
0
#10
ChunkyDot wrote:
I just played a game here, and my opponent resigned when he was subjected to an unstoppable mate in 1, yes it was an obvious mate in 1 and easy one at that, and there was no way my opponent could save the game, so obviously he was gonna lose. But my point is why resign? How can he be so sure that I will actually play the mate in 1, I could hallucinate, I could blunder, there are tonnes of such possibility, how can one resign just on the basis of assumption that opponent knows how to win the particular position, stupid logic.
Maybe he’s so dissatisfied with his own play that he thinks he shouldn’t be on the board. I do that when I make some stupid unforgivable blunders. If he isn’t being the person he wants to be in the game then he has every right to surrender it.
Everybody has different things they want from it and that they want to be. They are entitled to pursue that.
There are many reasons one might resign. Here is a position from a game I played vs a strong master. I was Black and made a move and the strong master resigned. Can you guess what the move was why he resigned? [game was over 50 years ago and was postal chess.]
2nd question--do you think he was stupid to resign?
3rd question---virtually every strong player will resign some games. Do you think they are "stupid" because they sometimes resign?
Jul 13, 2021
0
#12
Sometimes not resigning works. It has happened a lot of times with me. But if you want to resign, first see how the opponent plays. If they are making blunders and mistake then don't resign. If they are not you can
pls use children language as there are kid in the platform
I always surrender asap -4 P. I am fairly low elo and I do not want to catch behind. I give them the points and start a new one. Simple as that.
I was just going to put my own post, however on this subject.. played 2 games tonight, first one resigned, second one played on to the bitter end. In the second game we both learned more, me how to finish without blundering a stalemate, he (she) how to try and save a hopeless situation, great respect to the second player. Up until the time we all become grandmasters there is always hope.
ponz111 escribió:
There are many reasons one might resign. Here is a position from a game I played vs a strong master. I was Black and made a move and the strong master resigned. Can you guess what the move was why he resigned? [game was over 50 years ago and was postal chess.]
2nd question--do you think he was stupid to resign?
3rd question---virtually every strong player will resign some games. Do you think they are "stupid" because they sometimes resign?
Good ole ponz shoehorning his wins against strong masters, as usual.
I just played a game here, and my opponent resigned when he was subjected to an unstoppable mate in 1, yes it was an obvious mate in 1 and easy one at that, and there was no way my opponent could save the game, so obviously he was gonna lose. But my point is why resign? How can he be so sure that I will actually play the mate in 1, I could hallucinate, I could blunder, there are tonnes of such possibility, how can one resign just on the basis of assumption that opponent knows how to win the particular position, stupid logic.