Resignation vs Checkmate!
Sort:
Your opponent had the option of taking your castle with the queen, loosing his queen to your 2nd castle technically not checkmate.
It's not checkmate as BruceAU mentioned.
That said, I think it is bad form to resign when there is an obvious forced mate...
When your opponent has played a strong game, why not give him the satisfaction of ending it with a mate.
resignation is an option, without need for explanation... but opponents have different attitude towards it... for me, it's better that my opponent resigned than an opponents purposely timing-out on games.
If i'm surely will be mated, I'd better resign...
If I'm playing with a an experienced player, I would resign, but with friends sometimes I let them feel the thrill of mating my king. It's great to feel and see combinations of a forced mate...a puzzle in the making...lol
May 26, 2008
0
#8
The resign/not resign problem is largely one of experience. Some months ago a young English opponent who was a queen and a piece down with an exposed king said, "I don't know what to do. Do you mind if I give up?" He didn't realise that resignation was a valid option. Let's face it ... it's the way most games end.
(Fischer was being interviewed on a TV talk show on his return from Reykjavik and, when asked what Spassky was like he quipped, "We didn't talk much. We'd shake hands and he'd say, "Good morning." Then a couple of hours later he'd say, "I resign.")
I've had on-line opponents play on in hopeless positions just because they didn't seem to realise that "Resigns" was probably the best move. Playing on in a lost game while you hope your opponent will commit harakiri is just a form of self flagellation. It's the chess equivalent of wearing a hair shirt!
I was wondering, does your rating become affected the same way whether you resign or allow yourself to be checkmated ? Do you lose more pointsw if you resign ? Does anybody know the answer ?
slimcheffy wrote: I was wondering, does your rating become affected the same way whether you resign or allow yourself to be checkmated ? Do you lose more pointsw if you resign ? Does anybody know the answer ?
The rules of chess state that you can win either of three ways: 1. Checkmate the opposing king; 2. Opponent resigns; 3. Opponent runs out of time. As long as one of these conditions is satisfied, you win. And a win is a win period.
Dozy wrote:
I've had on-line opponents play on in hopeless positions just because they didn't seem to realise that "Resigns" was probably the best move. Playing on in a lost game while you hope your opponent will commit harakiri is just a form of self flagellation. It's the chess equivalent of wearing a hair shirt!
I'm fully able to blunder away a totally winning position, so I completely understand if someone does not want to resign because they are hoping to pull out a miracle win.
On the other hand, it is a learning experience for me to play out a game even when it either looks like I can't lose or I can't win. But as a matter of courtesy, I think you can say something like "I know I'm in a hopeless situation, but I need the practice. Do you mind if I don't resign?" If my opponent has exhausted his or her patience with "schooling" me, I'm happy to resign.
May 28, 2008
0
#12
Playing a game out to the end is the *best* way to learn from your mistakes, especially when you've entered into a losing position.
beyondwithin wrote:
ive played games where i saw a forced mate on myself but played on to win.
that feels better then resigning for sure. unless you are using a chess engine or it is an obvious forced mate, i dont see any reason not to play on. basically what you are saying is you dont want to play if you are losing.
Ugh. "I don't see any reason not to play on" -- I'll try to illuminate the darkness, then...
Why play on in a game that has lost all it's savor? When the game has left the game doesn't it make sense to move on? Resigning is not saying "I don't want to play when I'm losing" (indeed, the real irritation is being forced to play out a winning position...) Resigning is saying: "I don't want to pretend this is play -- it's just pushing wood around, now. Real chess requires intelligence, there is no intelligence needed any longer... winning has become a mechanical excericise. Good game. Thank you."
Playing on when the game is done is a waste of both party's time. It primarily serves to try the patience of the player with the win. Nothing says, "I understand well neither the game of chess, nor it's etiquette" quite like failing to resign an obviously lost position.
_All_ the best players, titled players, understand resignation, and resign when appropriate. They resign when money, prestige and trophies are on the line. We study their moves and copy their games, so why can't we -- playing low-level skittles games for nothing more than an "online" rating, emulate this simple courtesy, as well?
@ #16,
Dead on.
I resign when the player is obviously much more experienced than me, or a long time member. Otherwise, I've had a few cases where the opponent blundered, which gave me a chance to make a come back. Take this for example (look at move 31).
And in 1 instance my opponent ended up timing out (happened to all his games, so I'm assuming he quit the site).
Definitely subscribe to the play it out philosophy here. Some of my most satisfying wins have come from fighting back in worse or even losing positions. I think most people can learn more this way. Experience teaches when its time to resign.
Michael, I agree with you man nothing worse than someone who just lets there time run in a dead lost position. Fortunately most people are better sportsmen than this.
JG27Pyth wrote:
Playing on when the game is done is a waste of both party's time. It primarily serves to try the patience of the player with the win. Nothing says, "I understand well neither the game of chess, nor it's etiquette" quite like failing to resign an obviously lost position.
I think you are mistaken in this. You may find it useless to play on in a lost position, but, as I mentioned, I get something out of playing both an obviously won position and an obviously lost position; but I feel like I need all the learning I can get. I think others have the same feeling. Obviously if you want to play on just for the practice, it is courteous to say something to the other player, to make sure he or she is not bothered by it.
That being said, when two players are somewhat evenly matched, I don't think it's rude to play on and see if the other player really can win in this position. Obviously no GM is going to say "Gee, Magnus, I don't think you can really calculate that forced mate in 7!" But if the players are lesser mortals, and approximately the same strength, I don't see why it would be discourteous to make the other guy show he's not going to blow the win and draw or even lose.
May 28, 2008
0
#18
If i know the game is over id always resign. Not much point wasting your time and the other persons. Ive never heard anyone complain if ive resigned a game. Its all about gettign that point which is the same even if its resignation or checkmate. I think its respect to an extent to resign when its going to be game over. I played in an otb tournement this year and i was absolutely hammering this young kid in material in a game and yet he wasted 30-40 minutes of my time by not resigning when i won his queen. This kid knows im a well capable player and still played on. He even spent 3 minutes thinking about a move when he only had 1 legal move available. This very much annoyed me and is disrespectful i feel. I wouldnt complain to an opponent though as it is ,at the end of the day, his right to play on as he sees fit. Stupid young kids with low ratings in open tournements.
"Playing on when the game is done is a waste of both party's time."
I must respectfully disagree. This is especially untrue for players newer to the game that need to see how the 'end' of the endgame is played. While it may not be fun for the person ending the game for their opponent, it is also not fun to tell the opponent they should resign when they aren't informed enough yet to see the end.
That's basically saying - You should stop playing now unless you're too stupid to see the end is coming.
Resignation isn't a die-hard matter of protocol, especially on-line. That said, I'm just speaking to defend those who wish to play on. Most of my games end in resignation, too.
Sorry to disgrace you by trying to play a game...let him play, maybe he will get better next time...don't be so selfish...
You did sign up to play that kind of game, so you should sit there. I guess if you had a one shot to play Kasparov and he won a piece, you would resign immediately? Not me...I would rather get checkmated than resign...
I am in the current tournament and my opponent resigned when I had him in checkmate. Is that possible? W. Carson