Why do Grandmasters resign?

I don't think that I have ever seen many GM games that end in checkmate. Actually only one comes to mind... Fischer v Byrne. Why is that?

Some GMs literally hate each other. Much is also said about the phychological factor. Wouldn't that be a perfect opportunity to vex your opponent with trash talk? "I demand that you checkmate me buttsuck. You are so stupid that you will probably blunder and I will trounce you fool. Why are you even bothering to play me retardo?"

I have heard of situations where there is very bad blood between the players and one won't show to shake hands but  instead he resigns by messenger. But he does resign. Why not just play on and tell the other guy what garbage he is?

Not only this, but in tournament or match conditions, it may be sensible to save one's energy for a position that actually has some play available.

1. Waste of time; some people value their time and energy, and would rather not play on in a lost position. 

2. It's very juvenile to play on in a position your opponent can win easily just to spite him, and some people (i.e. almost every GM I would assume) value their image enough to not do this.

 

Aye, it's rather frowned upon. For example, from Wiki:

"Over the board he was known for playing out hopeless positions long after grandmaster etiquette called for a resignation, allegedly in the hopes of reaching adjournment (suspension of a game for resumption on a later day, common in tournament play at the time) so that the news reports would read "Matulović's game is adjourned" rather than "Matulović lost!""

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Matulovi%C4%87#Controversies

Immoral is the wrong term. But, you are mostly on the mark otherwise. Poor manners is not an issue of morality, but it is considered a matter of etiquette.

Speaking of one of my all time favorite players, this game is one that I have used with youth players to illustrate tactical themes and checkmate patterns. I consider it a variation on the backrank checkmate.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in resigning when it is called for. Still, there are people who don't and feel that is shameful to ever resign. Thing is none of them are GMs. It doesn't make sense to me that it would be impossible to reach GM level without an inclination to resign.

Then there is the status and reputation side and I do understand how that might have evolved. Then again, you would think, that some GM, some place would aspire to be "the people's champion" who never says die and will pull out all stops to win. He and his followers would maintain that not resigning and other tactics like releasing a live skunk into his opponent's hotel room late at night, would be part and parcel of legitimate competition. After all, it is a war.

Fischer comes to mind on this. His antics in 1972 were bad enough but they might have been limited to what they were because he was playing Spassky. A certain level of reciprocity comes into play. I wonder if it had been any other Russian, especially a Jew, what would Fischer have been prepared to do?

'Cause they know they're gonna lose and just want to hit the free bar?  ;-)

I searched my database (a little over 5 million games) for games ending in checkmate in which both players were over 2600. Chess Base found 95 games. That's a small number when you consider there are hundreds of thousands of games between players above 2600 in that database.

Some of those 95 are blindfold and blitz games, but not all.

Here's the most recent:

marko  There is another consideration.  Resigning when approriate also perserves your opponent's energy and time. 

From the standpoint of your opponent if you play out to checkmate, he will not want to play you again.

The exhaustion is the biggest selfish reason. It sounds crazy but playing with 3 minutes a move and trying to play at a high level takes alot out of the nerves.

It is much more nerve jangling as well to play with an imbalance that is working against you than a comfortable position, because every bad move, you know, turns a difficult game into a lost game.

And given many of these tournaments GMS play in have top prizes worth thousands, it's worth their time to get that game over with, then go to the swimming pool or bar and try to recover for the next round, especially if it's an american style event with 2 rounds a day.

Also from a selfish reason, if you don't resign when it's obvious, you could have a gm do something jerkish to you, but kind of funny (like nakamura did to the computer in this game when the computer didnt resign)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480850

then you're stuck sitting at a table clearly lost while fun is being had at your expense, and maybe soon a crowd will arrive to mock you.

@dmn10

That's hilarious! Thank you for sharing the nakamura game, I rarely get a good laugh out of chess.

If you want to revive that weak thread that was ignored for good reason, then post the game that you had in mind when you started it. You know, the one where a GM resigned after losing a pawn. Post it here where people are taking an interest in the thread. Someone will be able to explain to you why the loss of that pawn made the game hopeless.

I think GMs are just good enough that they know when they're in a totally lost position long before it reaches checkmate.  If you know you're lost then why bother to play on?

The stronger you are the more likely you will resign [in lost positions] rather quickly. 

Playing on in a completely lost positions can be regarded as disrepect for your opponent.

Ponziani Power played a vote chess game over a year ago where the opponent kept playing on in a hopeless position.  Looking [after the game] at their remarks--they were of the hope that PP would somehow lose on time!  This is a team PP would not want a rematch with.

"I think GMs are just good enough that they know when they're in a totally lost position long before it reaches checkmate.  If you know you're lost then why bother to play on?"

Like ponz111 was saying, to wear your opponent down. One player may have a clear edge in physical stamina. Then the trick would be to keep your opponent at the board as long as possible, make him sit still for hour after hour. If Magnus thought he needed to, maybe he could try to pull something like that on Vishy. Magnus is in his early twenties and physically fit. Vishy is like 45 and there is only so much he can do to fight geriatric biology.

Resigning is also an ego thing, I think.

You're saying to the world "I'm good enough to understand how he's gonna win this"

Strong players that refuse to resign in hopeless positions are mocked mercilessly , and rightfully so imo .  Strong players know when they should resign and they do .  

it is better manners,

if you are down like a rook and your nakamura and youre playing carlsen then it would be an insult to carlsen taht you thinkn it would be good to play on

I think Nakamura would realize that he is going to lose a rook and resign before doing so...