Daz there is a difference between being a piece down and a queen down.
The chess in Queen's Gambit was very good my guess is Kasparov put in the little lesson about resigning when losing your queen?
Why do some people resign after their queen has been captured?
Sort:
Apr 12, 2021
0
#23
ponz111 wrote:
pawnstar
In the Queens Gambit Respect your opponent was one of thje reasonms to resign-not the only reason.
Sure there was something of value in what I was stating. It was you will learn much more by playing from close to equal starting position than from a position where you have a huge material advantage.
I should have said you learn next to nothing once your queen is gone.---you learn next to nothing--it is about 200 to 300 level chess and you are 1100 are you not? Always try to play at your level or higher and then you will learn some good things.
Also I do not think you are a begginer at chess so a coach telling to resign at your level maybe thinks you are a beginner or is giving you bad coaching.
I have coached hundreds--maybe thousands. I have told you why you should resign in such a situation--you do not have to take my advice.
Also not all coaches advise a 1100 rated player to resign in your situation. [they may suggest to new players to do this]
It is very lazy for a 1100 rated player not to resign. Obviouisly I disagree with FM Aash20
ponz: i dont even know where to start. do you actually think before you post or are you trying out some free association exercise your latest shrink told you about? i'll try to rebut your nonsense in the order you posted it:
1. with regards to 'the queen's gambit' what makes you think the janitor had multiple reasons to teach the girl to resign when down a queen? were you involved developing the script? well bruce pandolfini was. so let's ask him.
your second point doesnt even make any sense. we are not arguing about the value of continuing play when we have a huge material advantage. we are arguing about the opposite. but even if i give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply made a stupid typo in your post, this comment does nothing to bolster your argument. we already know your premise (which contradicts the opinions of literally every chess instructor's opinion on the matter), so don't simply repeat it, defend it.
with respect to your third point, i have to admit i dont even know what you are trying to say. (perhaps english is not your first language?) once again you repeat your premise without defending it. are you now saying that playing out games down a queen is alright for 200-300 rated players but not 1100 rated players? and are you implying for some reason that i only play lower rated players? i think you have confused yourself here. you should have checked out my game history before making such stupid comments.
with regard to my status as a player. no you are wrong. i am, in fact, a beginner. i have been playing the game for less than six months. (i think that qualifies as beginner status, dont you?) so you are telling me that literally ever coach whose work i have reviewed is giving me 'bad coaching?' everyone on the planet is wrong except for you? is that it?
point number five about you "having coached hundreds--maybe thousands" at chess: you say you have told me why i should resign when down a queen but you havent. you just claim i wont learn anything from the effort. once again, WHY do you say this? be specific. dont just repeat your premise yet again. give me some concrete examples as to why this is a bad practice. its true enough when you state that i "dont have to take your advice." and fear not. i wont. and 99% who read your posts wont either.
last point: you seriously think it is 'lazy' for an 1100 person to not resign when down a queen? again, maybe your english skills arent sufficient to express your true thoughts but that might be the single stupidest thing you have said yet and, from my perspective, you have set the stupid bar' pretty high.
no reason to repond to me, ponz. i wont read any further responses on your part because it is a complete waste of time to do so. but have a great day!
Apr 12, 2021
0
#25
At 200-300, you probably shouldn't resign. I remember I blundered a queen as a 1000 and my opponent was 1100 (I may have gotten the numbers wrong but it was around that) and I still won.
Apr 12, 2021
0
#27
JackRoach wrote:
Yeah, your opponents probably shouldn't resign when they lose it.
i think it is totally up to each individual as to when (and even if) they choose to resign. i'm happy to have anyone resign against me for whatever reason they may have. but if they dont--even when i am up materially--it is on me to finish him off.
They watched the Queen's Gambit 
They messed up on Botnez gambit
They didn't want to before?
Usually over 800 rating, being down a queen is pretty much equivalent to losing the game, but you're a 200 rated player so I recommend to play on, and maybe go for stalemate
Apr 12, 2021
0
#32
JackRoach wrote:
At 200-300, you probably shouldn't resign. I remember I blundered a queen as a 1000 and my opponent was 1100 (I may have gotten the numbers wrong but it was around that) and I still won.
ive won a game down a queen for like 3 pawns before
Apr 12, 2021
0
#33
k1ng_0 wrote:
Sometimes when I play chess, my opponents blunder their queen, and when I take them, they resign. Can someone explain why? (Also I put two games in the Game Analysis topic of people resigning after their queen is captured.)
Because they think they lose
Tiny some of the reasons are obvious. Suggest read this forum.
:)
The queen is the most powerful piece 👍it's worth 9 points🙂
Apr 12, 2021
0
#37
I know why people are saying that you should resign once you are that far down, but it's not like you are certain to lose. My ELO is around 1050, and even at my level once you are down a queen, you can still come back. All you have to do is not get to angry once you are down. When I am down 5 or more points, I think "What's the riskiest thing I can do" or "What attacks could I possibly start". But that's just my mindset
If you lose your queen and keep playing on and your opponent plays very very poorly and then you win or draw--what can you say--what have you accomplished??
You can say "I beat a very poor player." or "I drew with a very poor player."
Much better to use your time to upgrade your play and then you might say.
"I beat a GM in slow chess."
Apr 12, 2021
0
#40
ponz111 wrote:
If you lose your queen and keep playing on and your opponent plays very very poorly and then you win or draw--what can you say--what have you accomplished??
You can say "I beat a very poor player." or "I drew with a very poor player."
M<uich better to use your time to upgrade your play and then you might say.
"I beat a GM in slow cjhess."
as wesley said to the sicilian in 'the princess bride' "truly you have a dizzying intellect..."
Trying to recover from a lost position is Sometimes a source of learning But not in the situations we are describing.