Forums

Why do people resign after they lose their Queen???

Online5

Hi Folks... Cool

***

So now I know why people resign after they lose their queen...

At low levels, where I play at, losing a queen can sometimes work in your favour as the opponent can (and it's happened to me) take his/her eye of the board...I've won many games having lost/blundered my queen.

I am certain this does not happen at higher levels of play ;-)

***

 

Does it wind anyone else up when you trap your opponents queen/take her, then your opponent resigns?

Grrrr....i hate it when people do that!! 

(perhaps these types of players have an emotional attachment to their queen) Wink

Powerful she may be, but the King holds infinite power...

Roycagen

Yeah i must admit it gets on my nerves too. they could still win without her, but i think youre right, they have a personal attachment to the queenWink

rooperi

No, I have a personal attachment to my free time. I would much rather use it to start a new game where I can play a meaningful game, than wasting it in the futile hope that my opponent is an even bigger idiot than I am

Puchiko

Being down a large amount of material usually means a loss, that's why.

dgmisal

While it is a player's right to play whatever position they wish, and I do not grudge anyone this right, I personally figure that if I am down that much power that I deserve to lose.  Now if we are talking a queen for a rook, or a queen for 2 minor pieces, I will play on... but if I just straight out drop the lady I typically resign to save my time, and the other players.  Also, it is an acknowledgement of their winning position and skill.

sn2010

Just because you are down a large amount of material does not mean you should quickly take the loss.  It often only takes two pieces to mate - and sometimes one of those can your opponent.  And even if you cannot win playing down material is a educational opportunity - see what you can do while at a disadvantage and it is likely to pay off when things are more even.  And finally you can play for the draw - half a loss is definitely better than a full one.

jesterville

Sometimes, it's just being mad at playing so badly and loose your most powerful piece...

shiro_europa
rooperi wrote:

No, I have a personal attachment to my free time. I would much rather use it to start a new game where I can play a meaningful game, than wasting it in the futile hope that my opponent is an even bigger idiot than I am


perfectly put.  

elaw304

I resign because I don't want to waste my time and the time of my opponent playing a game in which the final result is already decided.

Anatoly_Sergievsky

In large part, it's a rating thing. Anand vs. Topalov, they would probably be offended if the other didn't resign in a queen down endgame. At a 1200 rating, play on. The likelihood they will give it back is there.

I resign much more easily then I used to in correspondence play, because the quality of the game is much higher than it used to be. In blitz I'm a patzer (and so are most of my similar rated opponents), and so I will continue to play on even when down (some) material.

ModernCalvin

Well, the idea behind resigning when you lose your Queen is quite simple: once you reach the level of about 1500-1600, a 2-3 point advantage in material = automatic win, so losing your Queen is equivalent to you being 4-9 points down = pointless massacre, so you resign.

It has nothing to do with a particular attachment to any specific piece. If you have two tournament-strength players sitting down to a game, and you remove 2 pawns or a Knight/Bishop from the board before the game even begins, the side with the material advantage will win well over 90% of the time.

Modern chess is all about winning, any way you can. Once you step out of beginner territory, you lose all those personal attachments you have with pieces, i.e. I love my Queen. She is so powerful!!! OMG Look I have 3 Queens!!! My Knight is so tricky!!!

As an aside, it's crazy watching some GM games where all they need is a slight positional advantage and/or slight tempo lead to play for a win: they don't even need a pawn advantage to secure the win! For them, playing with a Queen down is like having to take down an F18 fighter jet while being armed with only a pocket knife, a paperclip, and a rubberband. For the vast majority of people, it's just not gonna happen.

ModernCalvin
Anatoly_Sergievsky wrote:

 

In large part, it's a rating thing. Anand vs. Topalov, they would probably be offended if the other didn't resign in a queen down endgame. At a 1200 rating, play on. The likelihood they will give it back is there.

I resign much more easily then I used to in correspondence play, because the quality of the game is much higher than it used to be. In blitz I'm a patzer (and so are most of my similar rated opponents), and so I will continue to play on even when down (some) material.


Yeah, at my local chess club, I often begin games with a Queen-down (sometimes more) and play as Black against the 600-1200 rated players.

slvnfernando

Right to resign or not to is the right of every player who plays the game of Chess. Lets respect that please!

baronspam

I recently resigned a game after making two blunders back to back, one for a pawn, the next for a rook.  It clearly wasn't in the proper frame of mind for a game.  My opponent picked up a couple of rating points, and was free to find someone who could give him a real game.  We traded a couple of notes after the game, and he was very gracious about it.

As far as being a queen down, unless you have a very strong attack as compensation, the material gap would be decisive. 

However, don't resign as a knee jerk reaction.  Evaluate the position and see if there is anything left.  In another recent game I made a pawn move, only to realize afterward that it allowed my opponent to fork my king and a rook with his bishop and win the exchange.  I was devastated by the mistake, but a moment later i realized, however, that if he grabbed the rook he was seriously opening his king position for attack.  My blunder had just turned into a brilliant sacrifice (ok I admit I didn't even know I was offering it when I make the move) and it ended in his resignation a few moves later. 

Always take a long hard look at the chances before you tip the king over.

meer1991

remember the queen is not your most powerful piece because if u lose the king ... game over

surojit

resigning is a normal process if the opposition hs an advantage of their survived queen, so this really lowers down our conscience dat we wd never b able to regain the pieces, and so we quit.

bt we shd stand and wait for the next best moment of capturing their queen also.

trigs

yeah i hate when people lose their queen and stop playing. i mean, why does the game even have to end when i capture their king? they may still have pawns i want to destroy as well. the game shouldn't end until i say so, and that is not until after i completely decimate every little piece of my opponents army. death to all who oppose me!

Murrrrr

Pawns have more potential than Queens.

For me it depends on what state the game is on. A really "loose" position where both have a lot of opportunities certainly is worth playing even if Queen down. In the beginning, it's pretty much hopeless... the same goes with endgame

kielejocain
meer1991 wrote:

remember the queen is not your most powerful piece because if u lose the king ... game over


The Queen *is* your most powerful piece (in terms of power, the King is often said to be worth about 4 points), but it is (technically) not as *valuable* as the King.

If you lose your Queen without compensation, there is little to play for if not educational value.  If you've been playing chess long enough to know what playing from behind feels like, then no one has anything to gain.  Many people feel that playing on and hoping for a colossal blunder from your opponent is rude.

My "best win" (in terms of rating) was a game in which a much more higly-rated opponent was quickly punished for being overly aggressive with his Queen.  I wasn't even given the opportunity to capture the Queen; he brought the Queen into my territory, I played the first move of a three-move sequence that would capture the Queen, and he immediately saw his fate and resigned.  He was rated 200 points higher than me at the start of the game; if ever there was an opponent that could recover from such a loss, it was he.  But he resigned out of respect for my ability to turn such a large material advantage into a win, even against better competition.

eXecute

Sometimes all it takes is a lost knight and it's going to be a loss. I played on because I hoped my opponent may stalemate me, didn't happen though.