Why do Grandmasters resign?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
"At the amateur level it is understandable to continue playing in so called "hopeless positions", simply because you hope the opponent will blunder away his advantage or you will find a miraculous tactic to draw the game or even win it. At the grandmaster level resignation is a sign of respect for your opponent and that you acknowledge their skill and ability to win from the current position."
On the Amatuer level another kind of respect should come into play more often, namely, respect for one's self. Resigning says "Yeah, I overlooked something and hung a piece but I'm smart enough to know when I'm licked." Not resigning says, "I'm both too dumb and too obstinate to recognize any mistake on my part and what is more, I don't care about how much acrimony and discord I create."
The idea is that your opponent may indeed deserve to win but, in many cases, you deserve to lose and when it happens you should see that you do in the most sportsman like way possible.
Oct 14, 2013
0
#24
The answer is simple. We amateurs know very little about chess, compared to GM's. When we look at a board, we do not see things as clearly. Therefore, when we are losing, we can more easily delude ourselves. At least until the actual end appears.
GM's do not have the luxury of such ignorance. Their vision is too sharp. They cannot fool themselves into thinking the game is salvagable, when they know they could (with colors reversed) win that same position in speedchess. Their opponents winning plan just that obvious to them.
.
as far as I know, if you don't resign when you're losing, it's an insult to the winning opponent as if he was not worth your resignation.
this was said to me by a friend who plays in national tournaments here in Italy.
Jul 7, 2014
0
#26
Reb skrev:
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 .
what about those that resign in winning positions cause they think they are losing aren't they mocked mercilessly too? 
- or even resigning positions that he could draw like Kasparov that resigned against deep blue when he had a draw.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1161227
Jul 7, 2014
0
#27
resigning with a hopelessly won position against someone who plays on regardless is a sign of great integrity
Mottley wrote:
resigning with a hopelessly won position against someone who plays on regardless is a sign of great integrity
I think you mean "lost" instead of "won"
When you get to be a class A player or maybe before, you know when to resign.
Jul 7, 2014
0
#30
ponz111 skrev:
Mottley wrote:
resigning with a hopelessly won position against someone who plays on regardless is a sign of great integrity
I think you mean "lost" instead of "won"
When you get to be a class A player or maybe before, you know when to resign.
but some players they are obviously so eager to show integrity that they resign in a drawn position or even won position.
Resigning in a drawn or lost position does not show integrity.
Jul 7, 2014
0
#32
when someone is so addicted to winning that they insultingly continue to play on in a hopelessly lost position then give them a thrill and resign...that way you have both made a point!
Jul 7, 2014
0
#33
define hopeless lost postion.
if your opponent is so sure he is going to win, he may play careless and not noticed any counterplay.
I doubt grandmaster do that but I think at my level of play it happens frequently that players are careless and fall for traps.
otb I won against a player that is rated 500 rating points more than me he was up a queen and a rock and managed to win - I set up a trap and he didn't noticed it before it was too late.
I usually know when it would be a good time to resign, but at my level I play on. If I can gain something from it then I won't resign. If my opponent happens to be 1900+ and I won't learn anything, I stop the clocks.
Jul 7, 2014
0
#35
Because they know enough about chess, to know when a position is untenable.
bobbyDK wrote:
Reb skrev:
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 .
what about those that resign in winning positions cause they think they are losing aren't they mocked mercilessly too? - or even resigning positions that he could draw like Kasparov that resigned against deep blue when he had a draw.
He didn't have a draw. He could just keep fighting in a worse ending, but he missed the variation and there were too many option to choose from. Don't change people word's, noone ever said that the position was ''drawn''.
Jul 7, 2014
0
#37
computo200 skrev:
bobbyDK wrote:
Reb skrev:
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 .
what about those that resign in winning positions cause they think they are losing aren't they mocked mercilessly too? - or even resigning positions that he could draw like Kasparov that resigned against deep blue when he had a draw.
He didn't have a draw. He could just keep fighting in a worse ending, but he missed the variation and there were too many option to choose from. Don't change people word's, noone ever said that the position was ''drawn''.
I am not sure what words I have changed .
http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/resigntxt.htm
I read this . "Kasparov made both blunders within a few months in 1997, first resigning a game against Deep Blue that he could have drawn"
cleocamy wrote:
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?
Good point, but unfortunately talking trash is against chess rules :)
Some players, like Short, play until mate in some cases
http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/
varelse1 wrote:
Because they know enough about chess, to know when a position is untenable.
Yes true, although I think that a GM playing against an untitled players would normally play more moves in a lost position
http://enjoychesslearning.wordpress.com/