yes
yes or no
Sort:
Of course, if I saw that mate was unavoidable, I would resign as soon ass i realized it. I was taught that is the polite way to play, but that's just me.
wouldn't you like the game to be complete? I always thought you only resign once your opponent has made a great capture or dangerous move that you cant recover from.
If the moves are obvious and dull then I will resign to save the trouble, and I will also resign if it is a good move creating the forced mate- I feel that accentuates the move. But if, for whatever reason, it is through slow progression, or if it looks like I was just stupid to miss it, then I play it through.
The game is "complete" when it ends Terricotta. By resigning you're saying that all the fun and competition is out of the game, now its just a plod to checkmate, and why not quit early and go have a drink?
if you resign every time the move is obvious or very good, and forced, then when does checkmate actually happen? is it only when you don't see it coming?
Aug 10, 2010
0
#7
I'd have to ask how I got in that situation. Since I don't usually play out losing endgames for dozens of moves just to resign 3 moves away from checkmate, one of the following would likely be true:
- An internet bullet game - probably would not resign
- A sacrificial attack by my opponent in the middlegame - would not resign if I was up material. Unless the previous move by opponent was the "brilliancy" which forced mate, like a queen sacrifice, then I would resign. My decisions here are guided by how pretty the final position is.
An interesting special case. What if you still had 30 minutes on your clock, to your opponent's 30 minutes, and you overheard your opponent on his cellphone say "man I've got to leave in TEN minutes or I'll miss my flight!". Would you resign then? Or would you just go get a drink of water, go back to the board, and wait.................
Terricotta wrote:
if you resign every time the move is obvious or very good, and forced, then when does checkmate actually happen? is it only when you don't see it coming?
Yes, I rarely keep going until mate.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
I'd have to ask how I got in that situation. Since I don't usually play out losing endgames for dozens of moves just to resign 3 moves away from checkmate, one of the following would likely be true:
An internet bullet game - probably would not resign A sacrificial attack by my opponent in the middlegame - would not resign if I was up material. Unless the previous move by opponent was the "brilliancy" which forced mate, like a queen sacrifice, then I would resign. My decisions here are guided by how pretty the final position is.An interesting special case. What if you still had 30 minutes on your clock, to your opponent's 30 minutes, and you overheard your opponent on his cellphone say "man I've got to leave in TEN minutes or I'll miss my flight!". Would you resign then? Or would you just go get a drink of water, go back to the board, and wait.................
That depends, if it is a big-time tournament then, well... I do get rather thirsty at such events...
Aug 10, 2010
0
#10
Terricotta wrote:
Would you resign even if your opponents checkmate was within 3 moves or less?
no ,they might blunder or get disconnected,lol!
Unless they were in serious time trouble, I would resign. Unless I thought they didn't notice it.
Terricotta wrote:
if you resign every time the move is obvious or very good, and forced, then when does checkmate actually happen? is it only when you don't see it coming?
Nice question.
Personally, I'd resign... if mate is inevitable, then I hardly see the point in continuing. Now, even when an opponent is up major amounts of material, it is sometimes possible to stalemate, and I do look for such possibilities before resigning.
But you're certainly within your rights to play until the end, and that's okay with me too. Some people grouse about a player stubbornly stretching out a lost game, but it's never bothered me. Just finish it out and be done with it... no bother.
Yes... unless its a noob, he might just give me his queen in the next move 
look at it this way: you spent the time and brainpower planning a series of moves, and you don't even get to present them. I'd understand resigning because the mate was far away,...but three stinkin moves? It seems disrespectful to have your plan cut short like that, and I believe resigning under such surcomestances conflicts with the object of the game. The true object of chess is not to get your opponent to give up,...it is to checkmate the king. A checkmate will always be visible to a good player, and if we keep resigning once we see it, checkmate, the true win, never comes to be.
shovel
That last sentiment is powerful, Terricotta, and I believe it explains the state of chess today. The goal IS checkmate , not resignation, but I think that so many take a lack of quitting early as a slap in the face as opposed to not understanding that the opponent doesn't realize how 'boned' they are. What is a hopeless position to a 2200 is, to me at least, probably playable a few more moves. When I see that it's hopeless, then I'll resign, but as a lowly 1400, I don't see it as quick as Ozzie would.
Aug 10, 2010
0
#19
Terricotta wrote:
look at it this way: you spent the time and brainpower planning a series of moves, and you don't even get to present them. I'd understand resigning because the mate was far away,...but three stinkin moves? It seems disrespectful to have your plan cut short like that, and I believe resigning under such surcomestances conflicts with the object of the game. The true object of chess is not to get your opponent to give up,...it is to checkmate the king. A checkmate will always be visible to a good player, and if we keep resigning once we see it, checkmate, the true win, never comes to be.
Oh god another one of these dopey threads. I'm impressed that so many good players have taken the time to really share some insights. I'm usually too jaded to take these kinds of posts seriously most of the time.
Terriccotta, I'll say that I wish that you'd have been more honest about your postition on the question at hand in your thread title. It seems like you just want people to disagree with you so that you can argue your point. Why not just be up front about it to begin with?? Anyway, moving on...
Much as I love on-line chess, one of the big problems with people not having OTB experience anymore is that they don't have to deal with real people over the chess board. So, marginial anti social behavior which might happen OTB becomes really rank and disgusting behavior online. By the same token, players who might normally resign a simply lost and resignable position OTB just wank around here and "play till mate" or even worse just run out the clock.
Personally I have no problem with people who exercise their chess "rights" when they're noobies, especially regarding playing till mate. But, when somebody plays till mate when they clearly know better, well that's just rude and wouldn't normally happen OTB. Of course there are exceptions, I can think of a game where Fischer mated Keres in the middle of the board during Fischer's first interzonal (I think). I think in that case it was elderstatesman Keres letting a 15 year old have a little fun. You've got to appreciate that and Keres was always a gentleman and probably the greatest player to never be world champion.
Of course in blitz all bets are off unless there's plenty of time left on the clock.
The only thing I have left to say is, I'm hungry:
Would you resign even if your opponents checkmate was within 3 moves or less?