Resigning point

Something I always wonder is what makes someone resign several turns after it became hopeless instead of when the loss is ineveitable.  I still play if I lose a minor piece, or say a rook for a knight, because sometimes I can win it back, but that's not what I'm talking about.  I mean something like 10 points behind, a lone king vs a king, queen and a rook.  This is an example where white suddenly loses a good chunk of material, but since black's pieces are pretty much stuck, white might be able to pull off an attack.  Unfortunately, black gets their pieces going and white plays pretty passively, responding to black's threats.  Finally, a few turns after falling 13 behind, white resigns.  Why the wait?  Was everything hanging on to the mistaken belief that they could promote their a-pawn?  Even with a queen, they'd still be behind on material in what is basically a nonposition.

Any thoughts on resignation?

Why not play 33...Rc4# ?

White should have resigned 10 moves ago????

No. If both players were rated about 2000, then perhaps. But, if the other is rated near you (1242), the chances of either player blundering away pieces is pretty much always there. I'm not attacking or making fun of your rating.The fact is that 1200 players make many more mistakes than 2000, that's why they're 1200ish.

The other player probably knew he/she was in a bad spot and thinking (hoping?) you might make a mistake or two.

Right on cue, ozzie!

See, cc? The NM sees mate where you didn't.

I see your points, but when one is 13 ahead, they can blunder both rooks and still have an advantage.  Of course, if it came down to it, I know I can't pull off a K+N+B mate.  It's something I should work on!  This doesn't explain why I have to prove to people I can easily mate their lone king with a queen, or a rook, or both.  Sure, when I played against someone for the first time with a lone king vs K+R, I didn't resign and almost got the 50 move draw.

On turn 33, I was looking at this and thinking "There has to be a mate here.  Where?"  After looking for a bit, I figured it was just my imagination and decided to free up my knight and stop their king from doing rude things to my pawns since time was pressing on.  Honestly, I had enough time to find this mate and should have.

It's just a psychological thing with people.  Especially in blitz.  They'll resign when they have 1 or 2 pieces left, and both are passive... they can't make a 1 move threat anymore, so they resign.

If they're totally passive but still have 3 or 4 pieces, they'll go on and sacrifice some stuff, because the extra material feels like there's more play left somehow.

Looking at your game, this is how his last few moves went too heh, play a check... threaten the bishop... queen the pawn... ok I'm done.

So yeah, mostly it's when they can't make a 1 move threat and they only have 1 or 2 pieces.  In longer games (and with better players) they'll resign earlier.

Interesting.  I'm reading The Amateur's Mind and he talks about how amateurs think that a good move has to create a threat and commonly make 1 move threats without considering the long term consequences.

Good point.

And really, how can they not?  Knowing only the rules (movement and capturing) how else can you make a discrimination between moves?  Some moves threaten to capture, and others don't.

Also I was thinking about blitz... one way to describe it may be seeing how quickly and consistently you're able to avoid gross blunders ("gross" being dependant on your skill).  In standard games, it's enough to gain a solid advantage... in blitz such an advantage means nothing if you can't continue to catch all the 1 and 2 move threats within a few seconds.

So especially newer players who are playing blitz, these 1 move threats make sense to them on two fronts.  The other being that it often has an immediate pay off for them when their opponent proves to be less consistent.

I never promote pawns unless I have to.  If it's K+Q+P vs K, then what's the point?  Here's an exception, of course:

Wafflemaster  makes a good point.  After one learns the basic moves, then it looks like attacking and defending are the options.  There are not many Capablancas.

This board will not reduce to fit my android. Ditto for "a simple puzzle" which I get in my message box

Wrong forum.  Talk to chess.com or android about that.  :-p

I never play blitz because it reduces the game to one of a slugout of 1-2 punches! Besides opening

book moves, positional understanding goes out the window! Fischer, the best blitz player ever, was quoted to say Blitz destroys the creative spirit!"

t he

Never noticed before.  You can't spell "the" without spelling "tee he"