Should I have resigned?

This is a game from a tournament on this site and I made a blunder early on in the game. I made a few more sacrifises and kept playing. Afterward my opponent told me I should have resigned and that it was really annoying that I didnt and the only reason he lost was that he was trying to get the game over with. My thinking is, he's not master, so he doesnt deserve the respect of an early resign, before all my options are  exhausted... So what does everyone think? Would you have resigned against a 1650 chess.com player?

Maybe, but I would be rated 300 points lower than him... In any event you won, he whinned - seems like that kind of thing happens a lot :-)

My understanding is that you resign when you are sure you cannot win - either because you are down so much material that you don't stand a chance or because you are convinced that your opponent wont give you the chance. Neither was the case here, and you proved it by winning.

honestly, i would have resigned at move 12. there are no pressing threats so white should be able to finish his development without too much trouble. white can get the king over to d2 quick enough and then his extra piece will tell. personally, i feel that you are one of those folks that people forum about all the time, sorry. i guess it just depends on your approach to chess though. i tend to resign a lost position, regardless of whether i think the person i'm playing can finish it. But, if white is unable to take advantage from his solid position at move 12, then he doesn't deserve the win. So, was it in bad form... maybe. Should white have won his won game, yes, so too bad for them. Hit the books and come back swinging from the stingin.

hehe, I guess I was wondering if I was one of THOSE people.  I like to play 3 to 4 moves in to a "lost" position to see if my opponent is good enough to take advantage.

how is a lost position defined? have you never realized your opponent could win an advantage or had a checkmate that he missed and then you kept playing?

But I admit, I get annoyed also when people play too long after a bad blunder.  If you look at it one way it is a waste of time. But isnt there something to learn from any chess position?  In any event, I made my moves quickly and we finished the game within a day.  I think if anything, I taught him a lesson in patience.

Anyway thanks for the feedback!

Oy...I just reveiwed the game...man I played cruddy early on...

Noboby ever won a game by resigning. Play till very last. But try to find best moves / try to make a plan how to get get draw in bad position. As someone pointed if you exchange all pawns lone minor piece is useless. A wrong bishop with a or h pawn is insufficient. You can create a passed pawn that can create enough preasure to get draw. A perpectual / stalemate there are many ways to get a draw. So never give up . In any case you learn art of diffence that way only. Your opponent also learns HOW TO WIN A WON GAME which is neccessary to improve your game. We always punish our students who resign after a blunder forcing them to prove stronger side's win giving weaker side to a stronger player. 

yea, I saw that one on the board.  I would have resigned, but I would not have whined if I were her. MAN you pissed some people off...

Hell no.  Plenty of room for your opponent to blunder or slowly let advantages slip away.  Did you blunder so badly that you know exactly what your opponent's moves will be?  If not, it is his duty to educate you.  Apart from that, he's only going to give you a 1900 answer, not a really insightful 2400 answer.

Why resign if u feel that you still can learn anything from the game, I only resign when Im in a forced mate or I my opponent is ahead thatg much I don't even know where to move...

Hi buffetrand

This question comes up a lot. My answer is always - resign when your position is hopelessly lost and you have no counterplay and no chance of a stalemate trap or perpetual check. I wouldn't resign when just a piece down unless I didn't have any counterplay at all - the opponent still has to prove the win. The game won't win itself. In fact, sometimes when an opponent goes up in material they become careless and you get a chance to strike back.

I don't understand how Rich won the game in post 8. I don't think it's good manners to play on hoping for a timeout, but if you start a game you sort of enter into an understanding that you'll play until the end or until you both agree that it's all over. It is always very bad manners to ask your opponent to resign, so he deserved you playing on to the end!

I think there is a big difference between the two games.  The first has actual chances for a non time-based win, because of the exposure of the white king.  Surely, your opponent could have expected a resignation if all the threats were disposed of and the position reduced by exchanges.  That didn't happen.

The other one, however, is purely a function of time.  If it is quick, then all's fair, and if the opponent did a poor job of managing a long clock, it's reasonable.  But for a blitz game, I could very well understand why the non-resignation was not well-received.

That said, the position could have been reduced faster so that the clock was not a factor.

buffetrand, my soccer coach used to tell us to always shoot for the far post. He said that if we shot near post and scored, he wouldn't yell at us, but if we shot near post and missed, then we would catch heat on the sideline. I think this applies to your game.  If you would have ended up losing, then you would have been wrong for not resigning. But since you won, your decision was correct.

If it's a clock game then the time is just as much a factor as the moves - clock management is a big part of the game, so if Rich beat him on time then it's a deserved win. The other player will learn a harsh lesson in time management!

I never resign and your situation proves why not to. Congrats on the win.

Ove Kask (who's first and last name seem to be a lot of trouble to get right, heck, I'm not even sure which is which) disagrees that you should have resigned... check out his game.

http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=1060176

If two people can make the same 'mistake' and end up winning in the end, I wonder how bad it can really be.

By move 7, you had about an even split to win according to the database.  When he took the pawn, the only game in the database was Kask's.  Even if he had made the most popular move (not best, but most popular) he still would have only had a moderate advantage historically.

Anyway, you won.  How can you wonder if resigning was the right thing to do or not?

Um intersting game, but I was black and I took the pawn and black lost :(.

I'm only wondering because my opponent is complaining.

Out of curiousity what was the best move for black on move 7?

I really don't understand how someone can complain that you should have resigned if they lost.  I can almost understand that sort of complaint if the game stretches on for days -- though both sides would be acting in bad taste in that situation -- but I don't understan

To be honest I'd have resigned the position at move 12 even against an 1200. I'm a resign early kind of person and the NEVER RESIGN! bunch allways annoys me.

These discussions are so pointless. You decide when you resign. No one else has a say in that, especially not your opponent. People may find you annoying but that's their problem not yours. I can't see ANY reason why someone should resign because his opponent thinks he is winning. It is your right to play on until you feel that you can derive no more value(be it value in the form of education, entertainment or ego boost, it doesn't matter) from it.

I personally would NEVER resign a game because I thought my opponent might want me to unless it was against someone who has chosen to play me 'as a favour'. He has thus shown me courtesy and I would probably be inclined to resign earlier than usual if I knew that he wished for it.

exactly. If the person is clearly better than me, theres nothing more than can learn from playing me and I resign out of respect.  Anyway, I'm guessing these resign requesters are mostly impatient immature 13 year olds. Its just frustrating because it makes the site much less enjoyable.