The etiquette of resigning

From my understanding of the rules of chess, checkmate is the purpose and goal of the game. So it makes sense to play it out until checkmate (or loss on time) since that is literally the very object of the game. For many people how many pieces, the position, the time, etc are all just part of how the game is played until checkmate, or draw.

In real life, as in, real life chess clubs and competitions, if you want to be that weirdo everybody does avoid and ignore, then mock in their back, just do that: never resign and preach the "never resign philosophy" around you.

It's as simple as that.

I've heard some harmfull coaches do teach this "never resign" to kids. It's a shame.

Beside the obvious common sense, if one wants a reason why resign long before actual checkmate is preferable most of the time, there is the energy management issue in tournaments. I mean real tournaments of real chess. There is an other game to play next day, and sometimes same day: you don't want to seat an other 2 hours playing a totally lost game with a Rook down and no compensations, so you'll be the hardcore "never resign heroe" in your imagination only, and the last fool on Earth in the eyes of everybody else.

Then lose next game out of lack of energy.

besides, not resigning a totally lost game for no good reason (such as time crisis aka zeitnot, or else), is simply a lack of dignity.

The exact opposite is true. "Never resign" is the only reasonably thing to teach to beginners.

Later, when they are 2000+ rated, they will probably have enough common sense and judgement to know when to resign. A beginner has none of that.

Here, on chess.com I've seen a lot of insane resignations. People resigning when they are barely behind, or when they are completely equal, or even when they are winning.

I remember a guy who blundered the queen and instantly resigned. In that position, he was still up a full rook. Do you really want to teach this guy to keep resigning? Really?

You're in wonderland, not walking in the alleys of a real life tournament having to endure the disdainfull glances of other competitors.

The online bravery to do all shamefull things and endure no social consequences, works... online only.

Dude, what about reading the whole post that I've written?

I'd like to see your answer to the question in the end.

I did not read the whole of your post, bexause I know all the BS you guys do preach, since I do play in official chess competition for nearly 40 years now, taught chess up to average club player to over 100 persons including my siblings and my kids, and am an arbiter of the French Chess Federation.

There is a whole difference between cases where not resigning makes some sense, and the sick idea of "never resigning", that is good for war but not for sports and games.

So, you may multiply the examples, it won't justify to replace a mistake by an other mistake.

Okay, bye. I'm out.

Comebacks are a famous part of sports, and if teams didn't try to engineer a comeback then their fans would have no need to stay for the remainder of the game or season.

A few examples of "refusing to resign" are:

The 1969 "Miracle" Mets (baseball) that were way out of the running in mid-season (fans and commentators figured they should take the moves needed to make it a rebuilding year) and went on a tear that allowed them to win the championship.

Barcelona vs PSG in the Champions League tournament.

Indianapolis vs Kansas City in the American Football playoffs.

Mohammed Ali vs George Foreman.

Some people see no middle ground between "never resigning" when behind and "always resigning" when behind. The decision to resign is often situational.

In beginners scholastic tournaments in the weak age groups a general rule of thumb is that King+Queen vs King is a (50-move) draw about 50% of the time and King+2Queens vs King is a stalemate about 90% of the time. Coaches are paid by parents looking for success and having the kids fight it out makes both results-based and financial sense. The duration of those games are often extended from 20 minutes to 30 minutes when the round is expected to take an hour or 1.5 hours.

In team events holding on for one extra draw can make a big difference in the final team standings.

In matches holding on in a very inferior position and getting a draw can make the difference in the final result of the match, and the exhaustion factor can apply equally to both players (or may favor the player behind - see the first Kasparov-Karpov match).

In individual tournaments there are positions that have faint chances of being held but which can tire you before the next round (high risk of exhaustion for little chance of gain).

Words such as "always" and "never" should be used with great caution in any serious chess teaching, especially towards kids.

Adults love to use such drama terms and words, it makes them feel so brilliant and mysterious. But these are, at best, lazy shortcuts for lazy, self concerned teachers and coaches, who like to pay such a cheap price for the feelgood "mission accomplished".

Every advice, action, step, should be properly explained and linked to situations, and exceptions should be all the same explained whith all the whys and hows it takes for a complete understanding of things.

This is then how, a kid facing a new and unknown situation, may figure out, transpose and improvise, instead of feeling trapped in a pit of ignorance and lose a game for no good reason.

And is what, what you just produced? A word peanut?

All I learnt from this endless "to resign or not to resign" debate is that neither side is going to resign. Shall we declare it a draw?

I recognize myself in it...! I have them all in my repertoire. I once resigned after a long exchange thinking I had lost a rook, when in fact I had gained it.

II understand the concept of getting used to not resigning: as well as learning to not leaving for insane reasons, as you say, also to build that propensity to use every resource and take advantage of every opportunity that presents itself to you. It would benefit me, a bit of a "never resign" approach...

An opponent surprised me by resigning in a winning position, though I was trying rather grimly to hang on. I had lost material after a blunder. I can only suppose the opponent had to do something else urgently and had to leave the game. I'm not complaining, sometimes it happens. I did a review to check whether I was winning without realising it, but no.

As for me, whether I resign or not is situational and I feel there are no hard and fast rules. It may depend on whether I think there is a real chance the opponent might blunder, in which case there may be some reason to keep playing on even in a bad position. Other times it seems unlikely and I think of all the pointless torture that can end right there. When I do a review after resigning, not infrequently the opponent was within hailing distance of checkmating me.

Since it is about "etiquette" we are talking about, I want to say this:

The less there is at stake in a chess game, the more awkward it is when one keeps it up in a hopeless game.

Of course, what one will name "hopeless" may vary according to various factors.

Yet, one of my ugliest chess memory, is an unrated game with no witnesses and plain nothing at stake, where my (losing) opponent continued up to the checkmate, wearing a sadist grin on his face... It goes without saying I declined the offer of a rematch.

Yet, one of my ugliest chess memory, is an unrated game with no witnesses and plain nothing at stake, where my (losing) opponent continued up to the checkmate, wearing a sadist grin on his face... It goes without saying I declined the offer of a rematch.

Was he a sadist or a masochist?

I believe he enjoyed forcing me to play an annoying game, waiting for his moves, and resisting the urge to tell him he should resign.