Resigning When Defeat Is Certain

Uh-oh, looks like c145h is undecided about something...

i like the rain

So does he:

like mushrooms after a spring rain! 

I don't have a solid rule about resigning.  Personally, I don't mind if my opponent keeps playing on in a lost position ... but that's just me.  I understand that it really bothers others, and I guess I can understand why, even if I don't share the same sentiment.

For myself, I've won a lot of "lost games" by not resigning ... one of my favorite games I played I was down K-R vs K-R-B-5P.  Looking at my opponent's 5 pawns (connected in chains of 3 and 2), I almost resigned, but at the time I had lost like 9 in a row and, somewhat stubbornly, I didn't want to go down without a fight.  Good thing I didn't ... I ultimately won by checkmate.

Of course, that doesn't mean I never resign.  I have lots of times, but usually (not always, but usually) when I just don't see stalemate possibilities.  When my queen gets taken, however, then I usually resign right away.  Losing my queen for nothing kills my whole style and approach to the game.  I can lose a rook, two rooks, 3-4 pieces, or half my pawns, and I'll keep fighting - but not my queen.

Also, if I can see the inevitable checkmate a few moves in advance ... I usually just let the other guy checkmate me, to give him the satisfaction of having seen his entire combination in action.  This is largely because of how I like to win games.  My favorite game that I ever played is my favorite simply because of the single final checkmating move ... if my opponent had seen the move and simply resigned, it just wouldn't have been the same to me, even if the win was inevitable.  Maybe that's silly, but I like having the move recorded as part of the actual game and combination.

But, as stated, I don't have a single rule about it.  I play it however the mood strikes me at the time.

How do you know that your opponent "will do so", unless you have a crystal ball or play it out?

i believe there is no way to resign if you are playing blitz, whats the point, play to death!

How about the player still on board after he lost almost all his pieces, and then his opponent try to beat him by a pawn checkmate?

I don't exactly recall who said it, but it was something like this: "By resignation in the right moment you pay respect to your opponent and also to the game of chess."

What is 'the right moment' is up to you. When there are still drawing chances (down N or B vs. rook or being a pawn or two down) you just keep playing and let your opponent prove that the game is won. But sometimes you just know when to resign. In my second tournament game ever (OTB, in my first game I drew ELO 1820) I played white against 1950. I played King's Gambit, he declined and there was a nice fight in the middlegame.

When the dust settled, the material was even, but I saw that I have absolutely no chance to win. I sacrificed an exchange to stop his 2 connected passed pawns and entered an endgame with N+5 pawns against R + 5 pawns. I did not waste our time with long thinking and searching for something what there wasn't. I just did like the game so I continued. He cleared pawns and then sacrificed the exchange back leaving both of us with f-pawns and he was h-pawn up. I was still lost, but there still was a light of hope far far away. In a fast pace I had to took his h-pawn and he got rid of my last pawn. Then I let him just make 2-3 moves to establish the opposition and gave up.

I could have given up about 15 moves before, but why ? The 'right moment' is up to me and I don't think my opponent was mad at me or what. All of us chessplayers like to play chess, even in won or lost positions. Everyone makes mistakes so you can hope for a miracle. But sometimes I agree it is just rude. Instead of facing 2000+ player a piece down for nothing, I would rather quickly resign than to spend few minutes waiting for an execution.

To complete my previous post, I never resign in blitz games, so do my opponents. In my first rapid tournament ever (before that I was a complete amateur and knew nothing about local players) in round three I faced 'a guy'. I knew just a little bit about opening theory, I just kept playing aggresively and forcing my opponents to make mistakes. (Before I played [as I see now] weak players, so force them to make a mistake was rather easy.) Back to the story.

'A guy' was rated 1950. I knew s#@t about ELO. First I sacrificed a pawn, then second, then a bishop for a pawn and then at some point even an exchange. In my third competitive game ever I was a whole rook down against 1950. I just fiercely attacked his king and didn't look at anything else. Of course he was finding the right moves, but it took him some time. Near the end of the game I had Q+R+pawns, while he had Q+R+B+pawns. I saw a perpetual, but in order to I had to sacrifice the last rook. I did it, but again he saw it and sacrificed a bishop to prevent it. Then there was some checking and after that he forced the exchange of the queens.

I was left with 5 pawns and he with a rook and 5 pawns. For the first time in the game I saw that I am going to lose. But then I looked at the clock and realized I had about 4:30 minutes, while he had 11 seconds. I was sure he couldn't deliver a checkmate, nor to get rid of my pawns. With clock still ticking I looked at him and asked "Would it be rude to offer you a draw?" "No." He totally calmly shooked my hand and stayed staring at the board. After the tournament he found me and told me that over the years (he was about 50) he played many, many games but only some of them were this interesting. This meant for me much much more than a win.

Now, as a local club player, I get to know who that guy is. One of the most respected players here, capable of many great games against much more rated opponents. And I earned his respect not by resigning, not by that wild (crazy or brave?) game, not by giving him a free halfpoint, but by respecting the game of chess.

I resign when:

1. I believe I'm lost
2. I believe my opponent knows I'm lost
3. I believe my opponent can convert the win without difficulty (i.e. I have no counter play or large time advantage).

Thank you. To answer your question, we don't meet much, maybe once a month when we play league together. For me that's enough. I am glad that he remembers me and my name and I am also glad that he knows that I love chess.

I think that showed also my respect to the game, because I did not play with fear, trying to play the best I could for a win. When it was clear that it was not enough, I told myself a draw is good, because I simply did not deserve to win. In my point of view, that is respect to the game.

I resign when i can have no more fun in a position.

 Don't play the Rnglish Opening.

It seems a bit disrepectful to keep playing when I know I have lost. If I loose my queen and I have no positional advantage or time advantage to show for it, I have blundered. If I keep playing I am assuming that my opponent will also blunder. This seems disrespectful. I assume he won't. I was the stupid one and lost the game before he did, and resigning seems an honourable way of letting my opponent know I respect him and do not want to waste his time.

Have I been insulting opponents by doing this?

If my opponent is higher rated than me or feels he is morally superior to

me I simply resign under the humiliation.

Great story indeed , too bad you just made it up.

Let's see your wonderful "respecting the game of chess" fairy tale again:

In your 3rd rated game ever, you played with a guy rated 1950!!! , you were a rook down(!!!) and he spend all his time to win(!!!)An experienced 50 year old club player against a rookie with a rook down.Dude , you see too many movies.This story is Rocky Balboa on chessboards but in real life can't happen.Unless the 1950 rated , 50 years old guy was a 950 rated, 5 years old kid.

   I am 50 years old and almost all my life in a chess club and that never happened not to me not to anyone I know. Anyone who has played in chess club knows that it is impossible to anyone to make a draw against a 1950 rated, 50 years old, club player(experienced and good) with a rook down at his 3rd ever rated game  and rapid.I am quite sure that not even Carlsen did that.