reading this thread makes me feel like im on twitter
Rules of chess: any situations where you MUST resign?
Sort:
Jan 22, 2022
0
#43
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
TacticalPrecision wrote:
pawnstar1957 wrote:
TacticalPrecision wrote:
You're supposed to resign as soon as you go down material. No sense in wasting people's time and ensuring you'll never get another game at the club again.
so the first person to capture a pawn (or any piece) wins? that should save us all a lot of time!
It will. Why would you want to waste your time?
the answer anybody who was serious about chess would be "we want to win"
which is the same answer I'll give now
Because we want to win.
Why? You don't actually win anything.
I beg to differ
I won 700 bucks last week from a chess tournament
...WHERE? There is NOWHERE in America where you can win money playing Chess lol. I can't believe you guys take this seriously like this. So bizarre.
you can win thousands of dollars via yugioh tournaments in america, and yugioh is a children's card game that has a smaller (but still huge, don't get me wrong) following with not nearly as much history. so why would chess not have chess tournaments where u win money?
Jan 22, 2022
0
#44
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
you can see the "Prizes" at the right
I live in New York. What good does the Golden State tournament do me? They need to move these tournaments out of the sticks.
Wasn't @GothamChess just at a torunament with cash prizes in New York?
Jan 22, 2022
0
#45
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
you can see the "Prizes" at the right
I live in New York. What good does the Golden State tournament do me? They need to move these tournaments out of the sticks.
New York has Marshall Chess Club they definitely hold a ton of tournaments
They only allow full members who are triple vaccinated in their club at this point.
touch grass and learn how to detect false info
Jan 22, 2022
0
#46
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
and that's just one tournament
the continental chess association holds a bunch
along with USCF
they all have cash prizes
CCA is nonsense. They want you to be on zoom with multiple camera angles at once. That's just ridiculous. Like we have to set up a studio to play a game.
who said that?
Jan 22, 2022
0
#47
TacticalPrecision wrote:
pawnstar1957 wrote:
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
you can see the "Prizes" at the right
I live in New York. What good does the Golden State tournament do me? They need to move these tournaments out of the sticks.
look at your post #24. you literally said NOWHERE in america. no one cares where you live.
I live in the center of it all. California is a wasteland here in 2022.
the most populated state is a wasteland that cannot sustain life, just like how you have a life
Jan 22, 2022
0
#48
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Maybe I *should* look for some games that actually have real ratings or money on the line. I just don't understand how my opponents can play so hard in unrated practice chess.com games. If there was something to win, I might actually try to win lol. But these time scrambles on here with nothing on the line seem absolutely pointless to me and are ruining the game for me. Knowing I'm playing against all the losers and for nothing makes their massive effort actually laughable and I lose interest in the game.
Google "tata steel 2022 prizes"
Jan 22, 2022
0
#49
I think that, in a way, there are two extreme behaviors when it comes to resigning: Those who resign way too easily even for the most minor of setbacks, and those who stubbornly refuse to resign no matter what.
The first type of player will typically resign if they eg. lose a rook for a bishop and a pawn, completely giving up, in almost any such situation. Sure, with perfect play it's rare for the game to be winnable anymore (unless there's some good compensation for that exchange), but that doesn't mean you have to immediately resign. Challenge your opponent to prove that he has the ability to capitalize on the minor advantage and win the game. Many times such position are much more balanced than it may immediately feel like, and (accidentally) exchanging a rook for a bishop+pawn isn't the end of the world (or the game), and might quite well end in a draw.
The second type of player may sometimes, or even often, feel too stubborn and, in some situations, even opportunistic and impolite. It's one thing to challenge your opponent to win a KRPPP vs. KNPPP endgame (which can be far from trivial). A rather different thing is to stubbornly continue a KQR vs. K endgame where your opponent very clearly knows how to play it and ladder-mate you and has 10 minutes on his clock. Continuing such a game is just a waste of time, and could be seen as a kind of insult to your opponent, as if implicitly saying "I don't believe you have the ability to mate me, even with that much material".
Jan 22, 2022
0
#50
DjVortex wrote:
I think that, in a way, there are two extreme behaviors when it comes to resigning: Those who resign way too easily even for the most minor of setbacks, and those who stubbornly refuse to resign no matter what.
The first type of player will typically resign if they eg. lose a rook for a bishop and a pawn, completely giving up, in almost any such situation. Sure, with perfect play it's rare for the game to be winnable anymore (unless there's some good compensation for that exchange), but that doesn't mean you have to immediately resign. Challenge your opponent to prove that he has the ability to capitalize on the minor advantage and win the game. Many times such position are much more balanced than it may immediately feel like, and (accidentally) exchanging a rook for a bishop+pawn isn't the end of the world (or the game), and might quite well end in a draw.
The second type of player may sometimes, or even often, feel too stubborn and, in some situations, even opportunistic and impolite. It's one thing to challenge your opponent to win a KRPPP vs. KNPPP endgame (which can be far from trivial). A rather different thing is to stubbornly continue a KQR vs. K endgame where your opponent very clearly knows how to play it and ladder-mate you and has 10 minutes on his clock. Continuing such a game is just a waste of time, and could be seen as a kind of insult to your opponent, as if implicitly saying "I don't believe you have the ability to mate me, even with that much material".
baseball games dont end in the fifth inning if the losing team is down my 9 runs. football games dont end at half time if one team is 6 touchdowns behind. what is it about chess that makes everyone so worried that you might show disrespect to your opponent simply because you want to finish out the game--the same game that your opponent committed to playing. if a team walked off a basketball court or a tennis court before the end everyone would think the quitters were showing disrespect. why is it so different for chess?
Pretty much saying that once you’ve lost something VERY GOOD then your chances of winning go down.
Jan 22, 2022
0
#52
TacticalPrecision wrote:
OrphanGenerator wrote:
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
and that's just one tournament
the continental chess association holds a bunch
along with USCF
they all have cash prizes
CCA is nonsense. They want you to be on zoom with multiple camera angles at once. That's just ridiculous. Like we have to set up a studio to play a game.
who said that?
The emails they send out specifically state that you're only entitled to certain prizes if you don't have multiple camera angles set up. The Marshall has a weekly 15+10 on Lichess which only requires a traditional front facing camera.
Aside from the camera angles: I agree the CCA events look great. I just wish they didn't require one to set up a studio in order to play.
alright, send the exact quote
Jan 22, 2022
0
#53
TacticalPrecision wrote:
https://www.chessclub.com/cca/january-game-60-on-icc
You can see in there that there are prize limits for no side/rear facing camera lol.
Oh
Jan 22, 2022
0
#54
TacticalPrecision wrote:
OrphanGenerator wrote:
TacticalPrecision wrote:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan wrote:
and that's just one tournament
the continental chess association holds a bunch
along with USCF
they all have cash prizes
CCA is nonsense. They want you to be on zoom with multiple camera angles at once. That's just ridiculous. Like we have to set up a studio to play a game.
who said that?
The emails they send out specifically state that you're only entitled to certain prizes if you don't have multiple camera angles set up. The Marshall has a weekly 15+10 on Lichess which only requires a traditional front facing camera.
Aside from the camera angles: I agree the CCA events look great. I just wish they didn't require one to set up a studio in order to play.
ye I played one smaller one for a different organization and we had to use the cameras and stuff
Jan 22, 2022
0
#55
This topic about resigning is more immortal than Nicholas Flamel and Chuck Norris... again and again discussing about if its right to resign or not and when etc... etc...
Just resign whenever you want to do that like that. Its very simple and clear. If you dont wanna waste your time with the game then resign... if you wanna be sure that your opponent dont do a mistake then don't. Its your right to do it and its your right to dont do that...
Really what is so hard to understand about that concept.
Why people need to argue about such a things?
Alramech wrote (Post #2):
Mr_Check58 wrote:
I just started watching the Queen's Gambit (the miniseries) and in the 1st episode there's a scene where she loses a queen (I don't remember in what way), and the custodian tells her that if she loses her queen like that she must resign, but she doesn't want to resign, she wants to keep playing and then they have a spat. My question is isthere such a rule in chess (or any other rules where you have to resign) or did the custodian in the series make that up?
No, in chess there is no situation where you must resign...
There is one unusual situation which I am considering, though rather hypothetical as it is unlikely to crop up in practice.
If en passant is the only move available in a game, but the player does not even know en passant (and therefore thinks he is checkmated), he would either have to let the clock run out or to resign.
Which means that if the game is played over-the-board and there is no time control, the player would have to "resign" (by leaving the game and thinking that it is checkmate, even though en passant is still a legal option; well, he can't sit there forever trying to find the en passant move).
Jan 23, 2022
0
#58
No, but there are times when I wish I could reach through the screen and hit the resign button for them. In most cases, I would really be doing them a favor.
Jan 23, 2022
0
#59
Mr_Check58 wrote:
I just started watching the Queen's Gambit (the miniseries) and in the 1st episode there's a scene where she loses a queen (I don't remember in what way), and the custodian tells her that if she loses her queen like that she must resign, but she doesn't want to resign, she wants to keep playing and then they have a spat. My question is isthere such a rule in chess (or any other rules where you have to resign) or did the custodian in the series make that up?
There's no rule in chess that says one must resign.
The main point of that scene wasn't to demonstrate proper chess, but to create dramatic conflict (he wanted her to resign; she refused).
It also established Beth as a determined player who hates to lose. 
Nope.