You must not have read this thread very thoroughly. We are talking about resigning in positions where the winning path is obvious to both players (in which case resigning is ALWAYS appropriate!!) and cannot be prevented- at least, that's what I'm referring to. That is why I posted the qualifier that if a player has any doubts about their opponent's ability to convert the win, they should not resign, but rather leave it up to the other player to prove their technique. There's an obvious difference between an 'advantage' and a 'winning advantage', and apparently some people who post here don't know the difference between the two.
Resignation vs Checkmate!
Sort:
Sep 15, 2008
0
#63
carpman wrote: If I see I've lost the game I will resign rather than prolong the game. If however the game is soon to be over anyway, I will continue and be checkmated. ...
Especially if I have just come off worst in an epic struggle: the checkmate is a fitting accolade for my opponent. (Whatever you do, don't mention this to the Chess-Spartans: they'll make me a honorary member!)
I hate it when people try to make the argument "It's not rude to play it out, it's my choice whether or not to resign." Just because it's "your choice" doesn't mean that choice isn't rude, wrong, or inappropriate.
Sep 16, 2008
0
#65
1315checkm8 wrote: I hate it when people try to make the argument "It's not rude to play it out, it's my choice whether or not to resign." Just because it's "your choice" doesn't mean that choice isn't rude, wrong, or inappropriate.
There is no universally agreed, objective standard on Rudeness, not even in regard to playing chess. Considering the general case first: if I beckon you towards me using my index finger, palm upwards - would you find that rude. I wouldn't - but to a Somali, that gesture is only used for dogs, so they would find it offensive. (HSBC ran a series of adverts pointing out cultural differences).
You, apparently, interpret not resigning as rude. Others interpret it quite differently.
IT'S DISRESPECTFUL TO CONTINUE PLAYING IN CORRESPONDENCE CHESS IF YOUR POSITION IS LOST OR YOUR OPPONENT HAVE OVERWHELMING MATERIAL AND POSITIONAL ADVANTAGE.. YOU MUST RESIGN..IT IS STUPID TO CONTINUE PLAYING IN A ONE MOVE PER 2 OR 3 DAYS OR MORE IF YOU HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING. BUT IF IT IS LIVE CHESS ESPECIALLY QUICK OR BLITZ...ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE....YOU CAN CONTINUE PLAYING BECAUSE YOUR OPPONENT HAS A GREATER CHANCE OF BLUNDERING UNDER TIME PRESSURE AND PERHAPS YOU CAN ESCAPE FROM DEFEAT OR EVEN WON IN TIME.
Sep 16, 2008
0
#67
cruzfranzenrico wrote:
IT'S DISRESPECTFUL TO CONTINUE PLAYING IN CORRESPONDENCE CHESS IF YOUR POSITION IS LOST OR YOUR OPPONENT HAVE OVERWHELMING MATERIAL AND POSITIONAL ADVANTAGE.. YOU MUST RESIGN..IT IS STUPID TO CONTINUE PLAYING IN A ONE MOVE PER 2 OR 3 DAYS OR MORE IF YOU HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING
I disagree, and funnily enough; where i come from it is considered bad manners to write only with big letters. I also find it unapropriate to call someone stupid or disrespctful - even indiscriminately - simply because you share a different opinion on a subject. Resigning or not is, after all, a choice and nothing more. Leave it at that.
Dozy wrote:
One of my opponents has found a new way of dealing with his losses. He lost the first of our two tournament games very quickly then, virtually from move 1, turned our second game into "take chess". If you're not familiar with that it's a children's variant in which players try to lose all their pieces.
Now I have to persevere with this child (he's 13 or 14) until I clear enough rubble out of the way to mate him.
Is it getting up my nose? You betcha! Can I ignore him and just play my other games? Definitely -- what other option is there?
I make no apology for mentioning the little boy's name. You'll need to know it so you can avoid getting caught yourself. (He's only been a member for a couple of weeks ... I doubt if he'll be around for long.)
Good lord. I'm still new myself (2 months!) but that much lost material/position hurt my soul.
Like says some above...If i'm surely will be mated, I'd better resign...Why wasting his and your time...
In correspondence chess, I will not hesitate to resign if I see that I am in an obviously losing position. The thing is, I am by no means an advanced player and I sometimes do not see if a position is obviously lost and so I play on out of sheer ignorance of my predicament. In this scenario, I feel it is appropriate to play on because then I can go back and analyze that game and see where I went wrong and potentially learn exactly when and how I got myself into that no-win situation that I had not seen at the time.
Some people genuinely do not notice that they are in that sort of position and so playing until checkmate is actually good for them. If they are anything like me, they frequently review those games they've lost in an effort to become better.
In Live Chess, I am more likely to resign out of frustration. Frustration with myself, of course. But when I don't resign, even if I am losing kind of bad, I will continue to play on if I am still enjoying the game. However, I never purposely drag a game on if I believe my position to be hopeless and I don't play "straggle chess".
But my real point is that if you agreed to play a game, then you agreed to a pre-determined set of standards and those standards do not change after the game begins, regardless of either player's position.
Whether you're playing a 30-minute game in Live Chess or you're playing 1 move per 3 days, those are the terms you agreed to when you started the game and knee-jerk judgements of those who do not immediately resign is the only breach of etiquette I notice.
If you don't like the terms of a contract, then don't sign it. End of story.
Well said!! I wish we had a "Like" button for me to click. :-)
JG27Pyth wrote:
Amen!!! It is a courtesy more lower rated players should learn. I tell some ppl I have you or you can't stop my pawns hoping they will not waste my time further.
I have had a player or two say I could use the practice. I will not waste my time further or theirs if I'm lost. Practice with a player who wants to or a computer.
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?
Jul 13, 2015
0
#73
I has happened to me few times when an opponent has already lost, but for some reason prefers to prolong the agony. For example, a rook vs king endgame may take a while if you spend a day per move. I consider it some form of disrespect. In blitz that may be totally fine though.
Oct 19, 2015
0
#74
my opponent chose to resign rather than to be checkmated!(last move)
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1319409013
Oct 19, 2015
0
#75
[Event "zubash73 vs. arnoldpaulz001"]
[Site " Chess.com"]
[Date "Oct 20, 2015"]
[White "zubash73"]
[Black "arnoldpaulz001"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1195"]
[BlackElo "1341"]
[TimeControl "1 in 0 day"]
[Termination "arnoldpaulz001 won by resignation"]
1. d4 Nc6 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Qd6 5. Nb5 Qb4+ 6. Nc3 Bd7 7. a3 Qd6 8. Nb5 Qg6 9. Nxc7+ Kf7 10. Ne5+ Nxe5 11. Nxa8 Ng4 12. Qf3 N8f6 13. Nc7 e5 14. Nxd5 Bc6 15. Bc4 exd4 16. Nf4+ Ke8 17. Nd5 dxe3 18. Bxe3 Ne4 19. O-O-O Bxd5 20. Bxd5 Ne5 21. Qf4 Bd6 22. Bd4 Nd3+ 23. Rxd3 Bxf4+ 24. Kb1 Nd2+ 25. Ka2 Qd6 26. Re1+ Kd7 27. Be6+ Kc6 28. Rc3+ Kb5 29. Rd3 Re8 30. c4+ Ka6 31. c5 Qc6 32. g3 Rxe6 33. Rd1 Qd5+ 34. Ka1 Nb3+ 35. Kb1 Bh6 36. Rc3 Nd2+ 37. Ka1 b6 38. cxb6 Qxd4 39. Rc2 Nb3+ 40. Ka2 Qxd1 41. b7 Kxb7 42. Kxb3 Rb6+ 43. Kc3 Rc6+ 44. Kb3 Qxc2+ 45. Ka2 Bc1 0-1
Oct 19, 2015
0
#76
[Event "zubash73 vs. arnoldpaulz001"]
[Site " Chess.com"]
[Date "Oct 20, 2015"]
[White "zubash73"]
[Black "arnoldpaulz001"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1195"]
[BlackElo "1341"]
[TimeControl "1 in 0 day"]
[Termination "arnoldpaulz001 won by resignation"]
1. d4 Nc6 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Qd6 5. Nb5 Qb4+ 6. Nc3 Bd7 7. a3 Qd6 8. Nb5 Qg6 9. Nxc7+ Kf7 10. Ne5+ Nxe5 11. Nxa8 Ng4 12. Qf3 N8f6 13. Nc7 e5 14. Nxd5 Bc6 15. Bc4 exd4 16. Nf4+ Ke8 17. Nd5 dxe3 18. Bxe3 Ne4 19. O-O-O Bxd5 20. Bxd5 Ne5 21. Qf4 Bd6 22. Bd4 Nd3+ 23. Rxd3 Bxf4+ 24. Kb1 Nd2+ 25. Ka2 Qd6 26. Re1+ Kd7 27. Be6+ Kc6 28. Rc3+ Kb5 29. Rd3 Re8 30. c4+ Ka6 31. c5 Qc6 32. g3 Rxe6 33. Rd1 Qd5+ 34. Ka1 Nb3+ 35. Kb1 Bh6 36. Rc3 Nd2+ 37. Ka1 b6 38. cxb6 Qxd4 39. Rc2 Nb3+ 40. Ka2 Qxd1 41. b7 Kxb7 42. Kxb3 Rb6+ 43. Kc3 Rc6+ 44. Kb3 Qxc2+ 45. Ka2 Bc1 0-1
I'll never resign and I loathe when others do. There's always the chance of a mistake that allows a stalemate or even a win but, really, It's a matter of integrity. You finish what you start, even if you don't like the outcome. I understand why someone would resign in a clear forced-mate but I still disagree with it. And I truly hate not finishing a game. I get no satisfaction from a win-by-resignation. I play chess to play chess. Half a game is half-enjoyable. Plus, if you're not willing to put in the footwork to earn your win, you don't deserve it.
What really gets on me, though, is when someone makes a silly mistake and loses a queen or a rook and immediately quits because they lost one piece 90 seconds into a game. Or when there's a clear forced-mate and they play it out until the very last move and then resign. That's just a sore loser. There's no 'intelligence' in it; checkmate is a long way off. You're just a child taking your ball home when you're down a few points.
If you have an advantage then the other shouldn't resign since the game is still to be played you're just losing even if the game isn't lost, but if you have lost the game and can't win then why going on. I mean I'm pretty sure mostly everyone interested in chess know that a rook and a king agaist a king is winning. Same for a queen. If you don't then just look it up online and you'll find it quickly.
This is not about taking a piece after 20th move and then if you don't resign you're stupid. I know someone who was quick on the resign trigger whenver he lost the excahnge or a piece he would resign. I personnally didn't like it since the position isn't won yet I'm just having an advantage and the game can still be interesting.
I might not resign in a king, bishop and knight against king since that's like a ridiculous mate which I don't really know.
If it's Queen Rook Knight Bishop against Bishop Knight. You're losing badly but still I can understand some might want to keep playing to see how he can take your pieces but I mean when he does just resign if he did get such an advantage it's not likely you'll be able to take his queen and both rooks with the 4 pawns of yours (if any). The game isn't technicaly over but it's a lost game and just a waste of time. He'll check you and you'll move your king until he mate or take all your pawn.
Some seem to think this is about resigning whenever the other has an advantage but I don't think this is what it is about. More like if you are obviously being back rank mated in 3 moves what's the point of playing what can you possibly learn from takin ghis rook and his queen before being checkmated? Same for a game where you have a queen and a rook down and you are left with only your king do you really learn anything from moving your king and getting checkmated? I think this is those case where it is useless to waste everyone time and not to resign. Especially if you are supposedly learning how to mate with king and rook from your opponent by playing one move per 10 days.