Because there's no point to play on when you're clearly lost.
Especially in vote chess, when you are not only wasting your own time, and that of one opponent, but that of two whole teams who would all probably prefer to start a new meaningful game instead of flogginf a dead horse.
the object of chess is surely to win? if that object is clearly impossible then it seems to make sense to resign. all you will learn by playing on is how to prolong a lost game. whats the point of that?
Once I am seriously materially down, or positionally doomed, I lose interest and want to move on to the next one.
I think what adds to the confusion for a lot of people is the fact that a strong player can close out a winning position 99.9% of the time. Often goes up to a 100% for auto-pilot win positions that he can close out in his sleep.
Not every person is willing to admit that this is true...hence his reluctance to tip his king over , hoping for some mythical comeback scenario.
Most non-serious players I notice in coffee shop clubs like to keep asking for rematches hoping that sooner or later, the strong opponent will drop a piece or that "luck" might kick in ... but in reality, it NEVER happens for players above a certain level. As schachgeek indicated, you'll just know that your opponent's technique is decent enough to end the game.
Of course, it really depends on how easy the "won game" is and the level of the opponent. You might argue that you want to "see" the win happen from a learning perspective. Sure ... as long as you're doing it for the right reasons and not trying to be rude.
For me => I'd say a 1900-2000+ USCF standard opponent who's a piece or two pawns up with nothing else in the position = resigns instantly.
I tend to play on a bit longer to confirm that my opponent knows what I know (when I see a forced mate against me), to ensure that I cannot gain momentum by my opponent slacking off because he is winning (when I am down a little in material with no compensation) or I feel that there are enough possibilities for a draw based on the current position.
If a game is clearly lost (ie, blunder of a major piece) or overwhelming evidence that I will lose no matter what, I will resign and move on. There is a point where you are simply wasting your own time and that of your opponent (in vote chess, your team mates and opponents, but luckily there the majority rules).
When I'm lost I try to get my king to the other side man
If u don't resign u r not showing proper respect to the opponent by thinking him a fool(like u) enough to make some great mistakes.And u will clinch the king.
Apparently draws and stalemates are two different things in the UK.
there's always a chance your opponent will stalemate you
That's what I meant when I said no chance to draw.
Huh?
"There's always a chance of a draw"
"Exactly, that's what I meant when I said no chance of a draw"
Being able to resign is one of the best things about chess.
You don't have to waste your time fighting any lost battles.
If you think there's a chance your opponent will blunder away their advantage, or if you want to learn from the technique that they use to finish you off, then play on. But if you're hopelessly lost against an opponent who has demonstrated the ability to end it, and you won't learn anything from the technique of this particular position, then why bother? Time to move on to the next game.
I'm trying to understand why someone would resign a game of chess, rather than playing the thing down to the bitter end. Outside of "I don't have time," which I understand, but particularly in the vote chess, I notice people are so keen to quit when the chips are down. Just curious as to why. Thoughts?
Finally, a topic has never come up for discussion before.
When I have been outplayed and my opponent has a definite advantage I feel it is best to just move on and give him his just reward. To hope for him to make a mistake or for a stalement in my experience almost never happens.
I resign in a game in the position is totally lost because you feel bad enough knowing you've lost so no point in carrying on when you know you've lost. I must say full credit to people who play the game out all the way to the end!
My time and energy is better spent on games I have a chance of winning -- futility is not something I enjoy.
It's also a matter of respect for my opponent -- I acknowledge that he's outplayed me and as a result is unlikely to throw away the advantage he's now got, and I also assume his time and energy is better spent on any of his other games that will actually give him a challenge.
I resign because you save dignity!
I think a lot of times, the better question is why play on?
Unless, for whatever reason, something important is really at stake, what is the point of playing some positions out. Maybe 1 in 1000 times you get a draw or a win, but the win has absolutely no reflection on your chess skill. When you're down enough material, you no longer have any real influence on the game.
In other words, the result of the game has NOTHING to do with your chess skill, but whether or not your'e lucky enough that your opponent makes a blunder. (obviously when its reasonable to play on depends on opponent's skill level)
Thats not chess, thats roulette, but if gaining a few points to your rating based on sheer luck appeals to you, then I see the point in playing on.
Is there a limit to the number of vote chess games running concurrently?
Past that, I can see the point for not dragging your opponent past the point where you've actually already lost. I guess either I'm too much of an optimist, or too poor of a strategist, to see that line in most games. Or I just end up loosing on time anyway. But it seems there is just something missing when you (or they) resign. Maybe it's just my mindset, but I get disappointed when my opponent resigns, and I don't get to finish. Do y'all not feel that way when someone resigns against you? Is it an insult somehow when they don't? Is not the avoiding of a stalemate not part of the game?
Oh, and honestly, dignity is not really a concern of mine. I had to get REAL friendly with the idea of loosing, before I could start getting minimally good (ie, beat anybody who knew what castling was) at the game. It's carried over to my other gaming experiences too. The win is a great (and often unexpected) joy for me, but in playing to enjoy the game, not just the win, I get a lot more out of chess than when I just played to win. And still lost a lot. And then just got angry and quit. All that to say, I'm not real worried about saving face in a game.
Jerry, I think resignation may save some time but not necessarily dignity. ...this is just my opinion. I'd rather lose than quit. Of course I don't like to lose and I reallyyyyyyyyy don't like to lose at chess but I feel it is fair and fun to play out. I still look at chess as a game so maybe we look at this topic from different angles .................
I am so frustrated when I see a nice, interesting game end in resignation because I wish I knew how it would have ended (the checkmate) unfortunately I doubt I can convince the geniuses (genii?) to consider my satisfaction before resigning. pft sissies ......jk jk :D
I'm trying to understand why someone would resign a game of chess, rather than playing the thing down to the bitter end. Outside of "I don't have time," which I understand, but particularly in the vote chess, I notice people are so keen to quit when the chips are down. Just curious as to why. Thoughts?