Outcome of the game when you lose your queen almost always favors your opponent and will happen 99%. They just resign to not waste time since them losing is more likely than anything else.
I sometimes win despite the loss of a queen and material disadvantage (at least against my app on the phone), so that is no reason to quit.
Thats good for you! Can you show me where have I said losing your queen is a reason to quit? You sometimes winning despite the loss of a queen and material disadventage still doesn't disprove what I said and you quoted. You were in 1% and it had happened to me also many times. Wheter or not it's a reason to quit is a personal choice and opinion.
Because I get so freaking mad I'm guaranteed to lose even if my odds aren't that bad.
Why is it unsportsmanslike? Interesting opinion. Many people would argue it's quite the opposite, resigning is sign of respect and playing on means you think your opponent doesn't know how to win up a queen.
Exactly right.
People who keep playing a game that's clearly lost remind me of the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," who insisted on continuing the fight even though his arms and legs had been chopped off.
tf
I think everyone who wants to tell their opponents whether or not they should resign should be banned
while more often than not its a clear loss if you mess up that badly, sometimes you get an advantage depending on how many pieces you gained using the queen before you lost it
I'd rather give up my queen for a 2-3 major major pieces vs a queen trade personally, a queen is powerful yes, but when your opponent positions their pieces right theres not much a queen can do without giving up its life.
Material (i.e. basically who has more and better pieces) is a very important factor in the objective evaluation of a chess position. The queen is the strongest piece on the board, roughly equal to two rooks or three minor pieces (knights or bishops).
If you really drop a queen in an otherwise equal position you are going to lose 99.9% of the time. Rarely you have situations where you have compensation for being a full queen down, like for instance you have a very strong mating attack or perhaps the queen is bound to protecting a pawn from queening, etc.
If there is no such compensation it is very reasonable to resign. There is not much point (and not much fun) playing a queen down. In fact most slightly advanced players would resign being a minor piece (knight or bishop) down in otherwise normal position (no attack, etc going on).
it is not a queen it is a king commen cents
it is the shape of the crowns tat kings and queens wear
and in real life kings have more power or evantiches than queens so it is a king not a queen
it is the shape of the crowns tat kings and queens wear
😂 Finally some common sense
thank you people always think it is a king but it is a queen
it is the shape of the crowns tat kings and queens wear
😂 Finally some common sense
while more often than not its a clear loss if you mess up that badly, sometimes you get an advantage depending on how many pieces you gained using the queen before you lost it
so you are saying it is an advantage to lose your queen if she has already captured enough pieces before she was lost?
#137 nope, that would be a stupid thing to do and why would GMs resign then? Resigning simply means realizing game is lost