The Weight of Resigning Late

Many players instinctively know when a particular chess game is unwinnable. I have found that the longer you put off resigning such games, the greater a burden that game becomes. By contrast, the sooner you face up to the inevitable loss, accept it and move on, the more enjoyable chess playing seems to be overall.

Chess is one of those rare contests in which you don't have to play the full period out once the outcome becomes clear. In that respect, it is kinder than say, football.

But don't resign your games with me, as I make fantastic blunders! And I'm sure you know that by now. :))

a lost game can become a burdon if you treat it like one, it can also become a masterpeice of your recovery if you give it a bit of thought and hope... i was used to resign every game quite early if i found out the i had lost a rook exchange because i didn't focus... now i play a bit longer, untill it's unlikely for a 3 year old to blunder... and i actualy think i feel better about ongiong games that have a thread of hope for a win on time or a draw than to resign immidiately, i might develop an amazing attack through losing a peice by mistake!

good thing we always have a rule book, and rights.

I agree. However, for many beginning players theres's a problem with actually know when a game has crossed the line of hopelessness. I tend to know when my possition is beyond repair, but have resigned game not knowing I still had some moves left that could have altered the outcome. I guess it's an area in which beginners have to be careful. This is a good topic. Thanks...Hugh

As informative as it can be to try to rescue a game through accurate defence and counterplay, I can find it annoying to throw a game away through a careless oversight. Maybe resigning those positions has something to do with retaining a shred of control over the outcome (even if it is conceding defeat), and moving on?

Also, Gonnosuke - maybe because of your rating, people feel that if they lose material they don't stand much of a chance of saving the game so just get it over and done with.

I too think this important. I also think ratings between you and your opponent have something to do with it. If you are rated higher, you may tend to wait a little longer trying to get a mistake to save the game. I often see higher rated people play to the end and I think it is because of this reason.

I agree with artfizz. If I can generate complications for my opponent, or get any kind of attack on his or her king I will continue to play. But  I play chess for fun and screwing around with an unwinnable game is a waste of time. I do think rating plays a role in this, and one time I resigned a game agaiinst a 2200 when I was a piece and a pawn down, he commented after the game that he didn't the game was over yet.  

It depends upon my opponent, position, and material left......  do they also make mistakes that I can exploit?  Should I go for a draw?  Is there an opportunity for me to mount an attack?  To push my pawn up?  Losing a rook early may not have as much immediate impact if the board is congested and his rooks are not in play.... but it means my ability to get back into the game diminishes with every piece removed in trade and every move the opponent makes to get the rooks in play.

I play a friend of mine OTB for money.....  he gives me 5 to 1 odds (it used to be 15 - 1, so I am improving!), but in this situation I tend to resign early when down a major piece because I need to win 1 game in the 5 and I don't want our time for playing that day to expire before I win that!  There is no incentive for draw other than keeping him from winning the point.  (unlike our on line ratings in which you can actually gain points by acheiving a draw with a higher rated opponent)   

The other factor that should be considered is how your opponent perceives your decision to resign or not..... and do you care?  An opponent that I play who is highly ranked (around 2300) that I want to continue to play against.... I tend to resign early when down 3 or more points, since I wish not to bore him!  lol... But also, my opportunities to learn seem lessened because I am busy plugging leaks while he keeps finding new ones to widen.  The game tends to play itself.  However, if he was to indicate that he wanted to play out each game we started, I would happily oblige.  I just appreciate the opportunity to be humiliated in such overwheming fashion again and again..... I mean, who wouldn't enjoy having their best strategic moves so easily dismantled?  My front row seat to the chess version of "shock and awe" ..... How cool is that?

That must be it!!  Gonnosuke, I bet you would only be rated around 1600 if all those people did not resign to you early!  You just keep psyching your opponents out with your chess chat trash talking right?  It won't work on me man!  The question is only whether you are confident enough to accept the challenge from the Zombywoof!  Don't let MY rating scare you..... I will take it easy on you!  You don't need to hide behind the protection of only accepting challenges from players rated over 2300.  In fact, if your self confidence is a bit shaky at the prospect of playing me (which is understandable); I will agree to play you unrated just to ease your nervousness from such a formidable challenge!

I find I'm resigning less and less. I'm more inclined to now think everyone is human, so they can make a mistake too and perhaps let me back in the game.

Within a tournament, there seems to be more incentive to play on - in a desperate situation. Partly, no doubt, because you not only have the immediate effect on your rating, but also the knock-on impact on your finishing place.