Rules of chess: any situations where you MUST resign?
Sort:
Checkmate
Jan 23, 2022
0
#62
Slightly off topic, but I had a recent experience in which I had my opponent clearly beaten, way down in material and 2-4 moves from checkmate in rapid (30 minute) game. He had 17 minutes left. He just quit moving but didn’t resign, and just let the clock run to 1 second and made a meaningless move. I guess he was hoping I’d quit paying attention, wouldn’t see or respond, and time out. Seems kind of lowdown and definitely wasted 16 minutes of my time. So I totally agree that there’s never a duty to resign but don’t play tricks. Personally, I resign when I see no realistic hope of recovering and winning.
Jan 23, 2022
0
#63
calbitt5750 wrote:
Slightly off topic, but I had a recent experience in which I had my opponent clearly beaten, way down in material and 2-4 moves from checkmate in rapid (30 minute) game. He had 17 minutes left. He just quit moving but didn’t resign, and just let the clock run to 1 second and made a meaningless move. I guess he was hoping I’d quit paying attention, wouldn’t see or respond, and time out. Seems kind of lowdown and definitely wasted 16 minutes of my time. So I totally agree that there’s never a duty to resign but don’t play tricks. Personally, I resign when I see no realistic hope of recovering and winning.
That's stalling. You can report such players: https://support.chess.com/article/675-what-is-stalling
Jan 23, 2022
0
#64
Mr-Mudd wrote:
The first person to lose a piece of any kind should not only resign, but they should also get down on their knees and grovel for their opponent to give them permission to continue living their life with even an ounce of dignity.
PLEASE SPARE ME KIND SIR, FOR I HAVE LOST MULTIPLE PIECES IN THE GAME OF CHEESE
Jan 23, 2022
0
#65
Optimissed a écrit :
I just played on in a dead lost position, for the past three or four days, as I explained elsewhere, because I thought my opponent was a bit iffy, for a reason I won't state. Today he was banned for unfair play.
eric0022 wrote:
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).
To add to my old text, I found this https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/stalemate.html somewhere in the early sections of the article (after the first picture with the starting words "the king is on no account..."
I suspect that this is the only instant where resignation might have to be forced if the game does not run on any time control.
I try not to resign but there are certain situations that I know I should, for example; when I start the game.
Feb 25, 2022
0
#68
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.
Sometimes down material can still be playable. Once I went down a queen, but then I left my opponent with just 5 pawns vs my rook and pawn, and my opponent resigned.
Feb 25, 2022
0
#69
eric0022 wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
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).
To add to my old text, I found this https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/stalemate.html somewhere in the early sections of the article (after the first picture with the starting words "the king is on no account..."
I suspect that this is the only instant where resignation might have to be forced if the game does not run on any time control.
I am confused, @eric0022. How does the fact that stalemate was formerly considered a win (not a draw as per the current rules) have anything to do with whether or not resignation is ever required? (Btw, resignation is NEVER required--even in your scenario. In a casual game with no clock, the game would simply continue irrespective of any actions by either player other than resignation.)
Feb 25, 2022
0
#70
Alramech wrote:
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. Any player is completely free to keep playing until there is checkmate, stalemate, the clock runs out, or another kind of draw is agreed or claimed.
Essentially, Beth goes down a full queen for nothing. "Why keep playing?" is essentially what the custodian is saying. Some chess players, like the custodian, feel that it is more respectful to resign a game when you lose such a decisive amount of material so that you don't force your winning opponent to have to keep playing that game.
In short, it may be a sign of respect to resign a game when you are clearly losing. However when you are new to chess, you should not resign until the game is over. You should play it out to see how the game unfolds. And often times, your opponent may blunder and give you a fighting chance.
thats really cool!
pawnstar1957 wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
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).
To add to my old text, I found this https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/stalemate.html somewhere in the early sections of the article (after the first picture with the starting words "the king is on no account..."
I suspect that this is the only instant where resignation might have to be forced if the game does not run on any time control.
I am confused, @eric0022. How does the fact that stalemate was formerly considered a win (not a draw as per the current rules) have anything to do with whether or not resignation is ever required? (Btw, resignation is NEVER required--even in your scenario. In a casual game with no clock, the game would simply continue irrespective of any actions by either player other than resignation.)
If en passant is the only legal move for Black in the game to evade checkmate (diagram in post #84), but Black is not aware of the en passant move, then things will get complicated. On one hand, Black thinks he is checkmated. On the other hand, White will say that the game has not ended yet.
If Black does not play the en passant move, who would win the game? There is no timeout in a timeless game.
Black's inability to realise the move shows that he is incapable of continuing the position (and thus, Black would be considered to be lost). But legally, he is not lost yet. That game can only end by resignation...or by adjournment (well, you can't expect White to point out to Black about the en passant move...Black ought to find it out himself somehow).
pawnstar1957 wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
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).
To add to my old text, I found this https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/stalemate.html somewhere in the early sections of the article (after the first picture with the starting words "the king is on no account..."
I suspect that this is the only instant where resignation might have to be forced if the game does not run on any time control.
I am confused, @eric0022. How does the fact that stalemate was formerly considered a win (not a draw as per the current rules) have anything to do with whether or not resignation is ever required? (Btw, resignation is NEVER required--even in your scenario. In a casual game with no clock, the game would simply continue irrespective of any actions by either player other than resignation.)
The position in post #84 was roughly about the position I once faced in an actual game many years ago on a different website (except I couldn't remember the position of the rooks - but I know that the White rook was along that rank). It was one of the two occurrences leading to me learning the en passant.
At the time I had not known en passant yet. I held the White pieces and I could not remember if it was a timed game or not - though I believe it was.
I played b2-b4, expecting checkmate. No checkmate message popped up. I waited for some time, but nothing - no checkmate.
What I did not realise back then was, my opponent also did not know about the en passant move! The game went more than ten minutes, with me wondering what could possibly go wrong (remember, neither of us knew the en passant at all).
Suddenly (I think it was about 15 minutes into the position), my opponent finally played en passant (likely through reading of the rules of chess again). I was like "OMG, A GLITCH, THE COMPUTER HAS GONE BONKERS!".
Now, imagine my opponent had not seen that move. And imagine the game was timeless. How would the game end then if neither of us knew how to make the en passant move? Both of us believed it was checkmate, but the system did not end the game immediately.
Though resignation is not forced in that situation in the absolute terms, Black should accept that he has lost the game (if he has not learned the en passant game, that position would be equivalent to him getting checkmated). This is why White should win - but because the system does not recognise this, the game will not end. Thus, the game can only end upon a resignation, a successful draw offer, a disconnection or some adjournment.
Feb 25, 2022
0
#73
eric0022 wrote:
pawnstar1957 wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
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).
To add to my old text, I found this https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/stalemate.html somewhere in the early sections of the article (after the first picture with the starting words "the king is on no account..."
I suspect that this is the only instant where resignation might have to be forced if the game does not run on any time control.
I am confused, @eric0022. How does the fact that stalemate was formerly considered a win (not a draw as per the current rules) have anything to do with whether or not resignation is ever required? (Btw, resignation is NEVER required--even in your scenario. In a casual game with no clock, the game would simply continue irrespective of any actions by either player other than resignation.)
The position in post #84 was roughly about the position I once faced in an actual game many years ago on a different website (except I couldn't remember the position of the rooks - but I know that the White rook was along that rank). It was one of the two occurrences leading to me learning the en passant.
At the time I had not known en passant yet. I held the White pieces and I could not remember if it was a timed game or not - though I believe it was.
I played b2-b4, expecting checkmate. No checkmate message popped up. I waited for some time, but nothing - no checkmate.
What I did not realise back then was, my opponent also did not know about the en passant move! The game went more than ten minutes, with me wondering what could possibly go wrong (remember, neither of us knew the en passant at all).
Suddenly (I think it was about 15 minutes into the position), my opponent finally played en passant (likely through reading of the rules of chess again). I was like "OMG, A GLITCH, THE COMPUTER HAS GONE BONKERS!".
Now, imagine my opponent had not seen that move. And imagine the game was timeless. How would the game end then if neither of us knew how to make the en passant move? Both of us believed it was checkmate, but the system did not end the game immediately.
Though resignation is not forced in that situation in the absolute terms, Black should accept that he has lost the game (if he has not learned the en passant game, that position would be equivalent to him getting checkmated). This is why White should win - but because the system does not recognise this, the game will not end. Thus, the game can only end upon a resignation, a successful draw offer, a disconnection or some adjournment.
whether or not a player is aware of the rules of chess is irrelevant. he is not 'forced' to resign under any circumstances. if the game is rated there will be some sort of time component involved and he will eventually time out for the loss. if it just a casual game with no rating and no clock involved, he is allowed to take an infinite amount of time to make his move. from a practical standpoint, most reasonable people will resign under such a scenario, but the answer to the question remains 'no.' resignation is never mandatory in chess.
Feb 25, 2022
0
#74
pawnstar1957 wrote:
TacticalPrecision wrote:
AntiMustard wrote:
They are good kids, quite polite and respectful and know etiquette quite well. But probably someone should teach you that. You are a troll, sir.
No, trolling is playing on in a dead lost position. It's America in 2022. Nobody has time for that.
first, that is NOT what trolling is. second, if you dont have enough time to play a game of chess don't play. BAM! another problem solved!
agreed
Feb 25, 2022
0
#75
if i must say trolling is kinda like lying and making a funny crude joke
Feb 25, 2022
0
#76
Hey, if your opponent blunders their Queen and they don’t resign and you don’t want to play any longer, YOU should just resign and go to your next opponent.