x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

why do people play out a lost position to the bitter end?

  • #41

    I think a player should be hopefull should also play in a lost position but there should some magical move in his pocket but if that don't work resign is the best move a player can play...

  • #42

    There is more to the game than winning or losing.  I play as long as the game is interesting.  Often I am curious as to how my opponent will play.

  • #43
    StupidGM wrote:

    Online, people get disconnected.  Offline, if you have a swindle, play for it, especially stalemate, which people are surprisingly bad about allowing, especially in time pressure. 

    Once it's clear your opponent has the win, then resign.  My coach made me resign any lost position or he wouldn't keep the free lessons coming, and he wanted me to never get in the habit of getting inferior positions in the first place, hence my emphasis on openings.

    The first opening he taught me in depth with the Alekhine-Chatard variation of the French, btw.

     

    Your coach was smart and correct. You should resign any lost position if you wish to improve in chess.

    Those who try for a stalemate or for their opponent to make a gross  blunder will never improve much in chess..

    Resign, when you have a losing position--play another game and learn something.

  • #44

    There was a game in the tournament I'm currently playing in (1950-1750):

     

  • #45

    To learn from, obviously.

  • #46

    Here is another example: https://www.chess.com/blog/OldChessDog/draw 

  • #47
    cjxchess16 wrote:

    I think, in my opinion, if your opponent is not resigning you should take your chance and get as many queens as you can. Like my coach GM Iqwie Huzo told me in his childhood he played another guy who is down a queen and a pawn but did not want to resign. Therefore my coach was able to get 5 queens on the board, then he called many other players to look at his opponent's position.

    As the players stare at my coach's opponent, he felt very embarrassed and just left the room, with about 10 seconds left on my coach's clock, he played the checkmating move at the last second. 

    Mentality like this is a good reason to play out, because "5 queens" people sometimes end-up stalemating the game. wink.png It's best to checkmate your opponent quickly and end the game; the more the game drags, the more chance there is that the winning player will make a sloppy move and give some draw or even win chances to his opponent.

  • #48

    I play out a lot of games when I'm down material...that doesn't mean it's lost because I get stronger as the game goes on....most people that are strong at the beginning are weak at the end (at around my rating that is)....

  • #49
    To try to get lucky, to get better by stringing it out as long as possible. You do get a teeny weeny but better you know.
  • #50
    Destroyer_Mark_1420 wrote:
    To try to get lucky, to get better by stringing it out as long as possible. You do get a teeny weeny but better you know.

    Actually, if you really want to get better--you should resign lost games and move on to another game. Or study a book or study end game theory or study openings--almost anything is better than prolonging a lost game.

    [if you wish to become a better/stronger player] 

  • #51
    Actually, is you want to get better, you can try to fight as hard as possible to the very end. Of course, reading a book and great and all, but you want to get better in any way possible. Why read a book of your evert gonna use those skills?
  • #52
    And do you really think the half hour you stretch out a game will really make a big difference if instead you read a book? No! You'll get better by getting a smidgen better by fightin' hard to the end. Those smidgens add up.
  • #53

    For me, it depends because I've turned losing positions into winning ones a number of times.

    Example:

     

  • #54
  • #55
    Destroyer_Mark_1420 wrote:
    Actually, is you want to get better, you can try to fight as hard as possible to the very end. Of course, reading a book and great and all, but you want to get better in any way possible. Why read a book of your evert gonna use those skills?

    I agree that if you read a book and never use the skills taught in the book--then it is not much use reading the book.

    Most people who read chess books [or study endgames or study openings or study tactics] improve their game by using what they learn.

  • #56

    Oh, my tournament was just wonderful and had an exciting end.

    6 people had 5 points. On 1, GM Viesturs Meijers played an 2200 player and got into this position:

     

    So, if you still see a little chance of not losing and/or the match is really important, you should play on.

  • #57

    Of course. in an important over-the-board game where you see a little chance of not losing, you should play on.

    In correspondence chess between very strong players the situation is different. Here is a position I arrived at [with white] where my opponent who was a very strong master--resigned:

     

  • #58
    wgfan0 wrote:

    There was a game in the tournament I'm currently playing in (1950-1750):

     

     

    lol. Black was foolish and greedy. Well done to White for baiting the trap but after anything other than Bishop takes Rook at the end, Black still has a won game. stalemate umadbro?! grin.png grin.png grin.png

  • #59

    I think, it depends on your feelings in the situation. If you feel angry or frustrated, there is no reason to play on.

     

  • #60

    I am really good at stalemating myself in a lost position, so thereś always hope for me to salvage half a point

Top

Online Now