Resignation vs Checkmate!

if my opponent gets an advantage early in the game i would probably play on becuase he might slipp in the long game or i can find a great tactic, if he sets me up in the endgame i wld imedietly resign, and if there is a forced mate on the board, or a rook & king vs king then i would play the quickest moves for him to checkmate me, of course in a real life game i would resign, but in chess.com there is plenty of time for every move!

Even when you see some games of GMs, they play until the win is painfully obvious, because there is ALWAYS a possibility of making a last minute slip.  If you say you've never lost a totally winning position, you're probably the only one...I'm not pointing out anyone specific, but I know good and well that GMs even play to the obvious end, knowing that the same way they made a mistake, so can their opponent.

Of course, in the end, maybe it is best to respect your opponent, that they don't understand like you do...a queen to a beginner is no better than a bishop or rook, because they don't understand how to use it anyway.

@16

 

No!  Often playing a little when all is lost is a good learning opportunity.

When I am down against a very good player, I like to see how he might finish me off.  Personally, end game situations can be very instructive.  Even as I know I am dead, I can learn.

 

 I do play quickly, and often i will make a polite comment like "sorry, I know I have almost certainly lost, I would just like to see the next few moves" or whatever.  

Anyone has the right to continue playing if the game is not ended.  

 

 

 

I personally don't mind if a player resigns, but I have a problem resigning myself. This is not because I'm hoping that my opponent bails me out by making a bone headed move that keeps me alive, but because I like to give them the satisfaction of getting the mate. They deserve it and I deserve to receive it.  Ladies and gents trust me, when I play the games and I win, I feel that the mate is the best reward. As for me and my wife goes, it's the only reward. :-)

lecycliste> Often playing a little when all is lost is a good learning opportunity.

When you're down a pawn, an exchange, or even a piece in a complex position then this applies. Your advantage may not be enough to win, your opponent may be able to launch an interesting attack, one of you will goof, or the finish will be entertaining.

But for Pete's sake, when you're utterly lost and have zero chance of drawing please resign! Or at least don't move as slow as humanly possible.

Mate-in-17 moves (game in progress) at 2days/move = another month.
 

Actually it is somewhat bad form to not resign when there is an easy-to-see [at both sides' chess-playing strengths] forced loss with no swindle chances and no  escape-by-opponent-running-out-of-time chances. Ask any FM or above (I, GM, ...).

Duffer1965 wrote: 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 losing position. 

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.

---

 It's not discourteous at all and I never meant to suggest it is. If you have any doubt that your opponent can convert the position into a win, by all means play on.  

I will play on in B + N v K  ending -- it's an absolute theoretical win for the B + N... but you've got to know how to do it, and I've heard tell of even the rare Master who is weak on a fundamental like this. 

But there are times when you know you're lost, and you know your opponent knows... and there's no point in continuing. If the point is to use your opponent as a practice partner... well, ok, if your opponent agrees, but you know if asked I'd probably say "ok" just to be nice and in the back of my mind I'd be thinking, "Ugh...this is like when my wife wants to play Poker just-for-fun -- no money or anything -- it's to 'practice'..."

sauce

saucy

When you know you are losing, no chance of getting anything out of a game, you should resign!

If you want to play on lost postions do it on a computer and learn that way, they don't complain!!

A player has the right to play upto their time limit on very move, and to play to the end of the game, but be respectfull....!

normajeanyates wrote: Actually it is somewhat bad form to not resign when there is an easy-to-see [at both sides' chess-playing strengths] forced loss with no swindle chances and no  escape-by-opponent-running-out-of-time chances. Ask any FM or above (I, GM, ...).

---

 Be as it may - that's what conditional moves are for on chess.com.

normajeanyates wrote: Actually it is somewhat bad form to not resign when there is an easy-to-see [at both sides' chess-playing strengths] forced loss with no swindle chances and no  escape-by-opponent-running-out-of-time chances. Ask any FM or above (I, GM, ...).
eternal21> Be as it may - that's what conditional moves are for on chess.com.

in my diagram above, it's an easy-to-see forced loss with no swindle chances and no escape-by-me-running-out-of-time chances.

Conditional moves aren't a replacement for good form. Black has 9 losing moves to choose from (and 4 likely ones) on the next turn alone.

Here's another position he's playing out:

likesforests wrote:

Here's another position he's playing out:

 

---

 Go and promote your pawn! That should convince him to resign.

The second position is not mine. But yeah, that's what I would do! He plays out to mate even in K+Q vs K... he never resigns as far as I can tell.

Skeptikill wrote:  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. 

---

 lol in a open tournament i played, i had checkmate in 3 when my opponent had  1 hr 32 min's left in his clock and the mean guy went out off the room and i had to wait 1hr 30 min when there was 2 min left he came back and resigned the game.

I think the problem is mostly that players in losing position taking more time than they need. If I want to see the end, while losing, i'm not waiting every hour of the time-limit. If someone felt disrespected by that I'm sorry, but I will not resign!

I was teaching a friend how to play chess.  He was very clearly losing and asked, "I can't see any good moves.  Should I resign here?"  I replied, "Well, you're pretty well screwed, but you should wait until you've got a couple hundred games under your belt before you resign."  That said, any non-beginning level players who do not resign a lost game are just being rude.  There is a difference between losing and lost.  Being down a pawn and in a cramped position against a better player is losing, but I don't feel obliged to resign in such situations, as long as I have some hope of counterplay.  If my only hope of counterplay rests on an unlikely blunder from my opponent, my position is lost, and it would be disgraceful for me to play on.

silentfilmstar13 wrote: If my only hope of counterplay rests on an unlikely blunder from my opponent, my position is lost, and it would be disgraceful for me to play on.

---

 Good post silent, i completely agree. 

Note the key words he uses.. "for me"..  each of us has our own code of honour in playing.. some of us feel this more keenly than others, some will simply laugh at me talking about honour in chess. That's fine. I wont complain to or about someone who doesn't see the game in those terms of honour. I do however have much greater respect for those who do see the game in those terms, as i and others such as silent do.  

It was his choice.