The "handing it over to him" came when you blundered your queen, not when you resigned.
Of course it depends on level though. And even petrosian hung his queen. But seriously, that was like 1 in a billion event. At least there weren't a billion games pointlessly played till mate.
So what your telling me trigs. If say a GM lost their Queen on the third move of the game in the deciding game of winning the world championship. They would pack up and go home. I find that hard to believe, but everyone has an opinion.
This whole thread is an obvious and elaborate April Fools Joke. No GM would lose their Queen on the third move of any game.
You write off the famed 'Hysterical Bag Lady Attack' (1.e4 c5 2. Qg4 Nf6 3. Qxd7!?) so quickly?
So what your telling me trigs. If say a GM lost their Queen on the third move of the game in the deciding game of winning the world championship. They would pack up and go home. I find that hard to believe, but everyone has an opinion.
This whole thread is an obvious and elaborate April Fools Joke. No GM would lose their Queen on the third move of any game.
You write off the famed 'Hysterical Bag Lady Attack' (1.e4 c5 2. Qg4 Nf6 3. Qxd7!?) so quickly?
I've never heard of that line before but that's one of the joys of Chess.com, we get to rub shoulders with such knowledgeable folk. Every day here is an education.
Goldendog was joking I believe. Goldendog is always right unless he's joking
I actually didn't like his weight lifting analogy though.
Yah I was just being absurd to make the point.
I don't know why people run off to other realms like sports or the battlefield when they want to say something about chess.
If chess is failing as an example, as it was for the OP, then maybe acquiring more chess knowledge is in order.
I guess that is why they end up on the battlefield, silly as it is.
The "handing it over to him" came when you blundered your queen, not when you resigned.
The moment at which the victory is "handed over" is perhaps open to interpretation, granted. But my personal policy (which nobody is under any obligation to emulate): I won't lay down my King if the very championship is on the line. If it's just any ol' game, I'll resign, absolutely. But if it's a high-stakes game, and I'm talking about the game, I'll force my opponent to checkmate me.
The "handing it over to him" came when you blundered your queen, not when you resigned.
The moment at which the victory is "handed over" is perhaps open to interpretation, granted. But my personal policy (which nobody is under any obligation to emulate): I won't lay down my King if the very championship is on the line. If it's just any ol' game, I'll resign, absolutely. But if it's a high-stakes game, and I'm talking about the game, I'll force my opponent to checkmate me.
Maybe, one day, when you actually are at the level of playing for any championship, you will change your mind - not a single world championship game in chess history has ended in checkmate, so people at that level of play clearly think differently to you.
Whoa, world championship??...! I neither confirm nor deny my viability in a future World Championship... in my lifetime... or anybody's lifetimes... 100 times over.
I was actually referring to a culminating game in any tournament, whether big or small, as long as the championship therein is on the line. But as for world championships... doesn't it make the most sense to make the opponent play it all the way out? It does to me... but I also understand the logic behind conceding early. The tourney game I mentioned, I lost my Queen and played one more move, fully intending to resign after it; but he blundered me back into the game and I won. Things like that make me want to play on in the most critical of games, in case something crazy like that happens. If one resigns, one will never find out what could happen. If a disadvantaged player is in a lost position (in that culminating game), why not at least make the opponent work like the dickens, or make the game interesting, or even crazy? But it will always be a judgment call.
OK, let me generalise a little more.
There are extremely few games of any standard with people who have titles that end in checkmate. Most of those extreme few would have been resigned if they'd seen the mate coming. The few left are special cases (like when Donald Byrne thought it would be nice to let the 13 year old Fischer checkmate him when he should have resigned ages ago).
My point is that by the time you get to anywhere near that stage, you'll have softened your stance on resignation. I'm not saying I'm at that stage, but I do think I have a healthier stance on resignation than you do. I'll still fight when there's anything to fight for, but once the game is lost for certain, I'll resign. I would never force someone to make all the moves to checkmate.
SchuBomb-"not a single worldchampionship game in chess history has ended in checkmate"
Hi, you might want to retreat(right word?) your statement because I found this...
My bad, there. Maybe I should have said "not a single worldchampionship game in chess history has ended in one player forcing the other all the way to checkmate" - Bogo was quite happy to resign in his other games, so my only guess was that he simply went insane somehow and didn't see the comparatively simple checkmate coming.
Some people resign when they think that they cant win...i resign when I cant learn anything from rest of a loosing game ;)
But never give up. It might look that your opponent is eating you alive but if you fight there is still hope;):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhLgR1Injl4&feature=fvw
Good players know when they should resign and they usually do, only hacks struggle on against hopeless odds.
they resign because they have no chance to win. i hate when 2 good players play 4 moves and after the get a draw.
Good players know when they should resign and they usually do, only hacks struggle on against hopeless odds.
Depends from a definition of a good player. Everone above CM (Candidate Master)...I dont agree.playing your games till end helps you improve your chess skills. You see how other people think and play tricky positions and endgames. You learn from your defeats more than from your victories...
Like I said I personally resign when I got nothing to learn from a losing game. I even reject a draw(sometimes) when I am on a loosing end because position on the board is interesting and I want to see how much higher rated player will play it out.
Am I good player by your standards?
Whoa, world championship??...! I neither confirm nor deny my viability in a future World Championship... in my lifetime... or anybody's lifetimes... 100 times over.
I was actually referring to a culminating game in any tournament, whether big or small, as long as the championship therein is on the line. But as for world championships... doesn't it make the most sense to make the opponent play it all the way out? It does to me... but I also understand the logic behind conceding early. The tourney game I mentioned, I lost my Queen and played one more move, fully intending to resign after it; but he blundered me back into the game and I won. Things like that make me want to play on in the most critical of games, in case something crazy like that happens. If one resigns, one will never find out what could happen. If a disadvantaged player is in a lost position (in that culminating game), why not at least make the opponent work like the dickens, or make the game interesting, or even crazy? But it will always be a judgment call.
No, no matter how big the championship, at a certain level, being down a queen is just dead lost. Your chances of saving the game are so astronomically low that it just turns out to be a huge waste of time, even for the most important of games. What you say may apply if you're down something a little less of course, like a piece! Even then you're in serious trouble, but you can still hope for a small possibility that you save or win the game anyway, but a queen is too much. If you're 1200 or under though, I suppose you can still get really lucky even queen down, but any higher than 1200, no way.
I think that it's hard to understand why people resign until you actually get to the point in your chess life when you see positions and go "ok, just what is the point of playing this on for 30 moves when checkmate is so inevitable?
"Like I said I personally resign when I got nothing to learn from a losing game. I even reject a draw(sometimes) when I am on a loosing end because position on the board is interesting and I want to see how much higher rated player will play it out."
Have you seriously done that?
Example :
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=31437408
This is a Fisher-Random 960 game, and without thinking, I gave away my queen on move 2. Yes, I am embarassed.
If I'd been playing a high rated player, I may have resigned. I may have played it out anyway, expecting to lose and not putting a lot of effort into it. I'm pretty new to 960, though, and I was playing a player who is fairly new to chess.com. So I decided that I'd go ahead and play and make him beat me.
And what do you know - on move 13, he makes a mistake, and I get a royal fork with my knight. After trading my knight for his queen, I'm only 1 point down.
On move 19, I get a chance to fork his king and rook with my one remaining knight.
We've both blundered along the way.
Now we're near the end of the game, and I think either of us has a chance to win - especially since either of us could (and probably will) blunder again.
So I'm glad I played this one out, despite being a queen down early.
If it was an OTB game against someone I knew was a strong player, if I dropped a queen early in the game, I'd resign. It all depends on circumstances.
you never know what is going to happen. you may find a weakness or think up something that will turn the tide. that is the cool thing, the way things go will can make you see a way to come out ahead. try. if it doesn't work, you still play well. put up a good fight. If you're going to sit down to play a game of chess play the game and suck it up if you lose. If you would rather resign than let the other player make the last three moves you see ahead that going to lead to a checkmate boo hoo. I'd like to see what moves are used to checkmate, that is part of the fun as painful as it is to lose.
As I was looking through some old WCC games I notice there were some games that has resign when there is a checkmate in the next move, why not finish the game (for the spectators ?) instead of resigning just before the checkmate ? I understand is ok to resign in the middle of game because of a loss position, material down etc.
I'm glad these players ain't defending my country, as soon as they loose their captain they stick their hands up in the air and wave the white flag.....
I'm glad you're not defending my country, a delusional captain with too much hubris to surrender when he is beaten.
"But sir, we've lost half our platoon, and we're pinned down by sniper fire: there is no way we can advance!"
"...[J]ust dodge the bullets. I don't care if we all die!"
This analogy does not work, because chess is a game and does not have life-and-death implications. Chess is indeed a sport. Athletes generally do all they can and pull out all the stops to try to win a game even at a huge disadvantage, if it's the "big game." (Granted, even they will forbear certain strategies if the risk of injury far outweighs the probability to win.) In baseball, (American) football, etc., coaches and players alter their strategies in the late stages of a game to scrape out a win in just about any way possible. When these kicks, scratches, and clawings turn into an improbable opportunity for the underdog to actually upend their opponents, the game becomes really exciting. But this excitement would never happen if the overwhelmed team rolls over and plays dead instead of scratching and clawing.
But in chess, respect for the opponent sometimes seems to supersede the quality of the games or matches. This hearkens back to the "resign or checkmate?" debate, which I loathe to belabor. I don't blame anyone at all for resigning when down a Queen. If it were me, I would resign too... with one exception. If I were playing a decisive game, i.e. for "all the marbles," I would play until checkmate regardless, purely on principle. I would make my opponent work for the championship itself, rather than just hand it over to him.
Several years ago, I was playing a tournament game and lost my Queen for a Knight. Disheartened, I decided to resign, but to first play just a little longer. After he took my Queen, I transparently attacked his Queen with my Knight... and he didn't see it! I leveled the material and went on the win the game, because he was disheartened more than I had been.