118 ( +1 | -1 ) ResignationOK, so I am playing tursas (board #525926), when he misses a move and I take his queen. After the capture, he has taken my white bishop, a pawn, and a knight, and now I have taken his white bishop and queen. We are in the 15th move, and it has been back and forth, but s/he resigns.
The main reason I am playing him/her is because of his/her rating of 1500+, and I am hoping to get a higher quality win. I am somewhat assuming that the higher rating means that this is a good, serious player, that is a worthy opponent.
The resignation thing kills me. That happens to me all the time on cheap sites like Instant Chess. You kill a queen and the person almost always drops out.
I guess my question is, how common is this? H/She was technically still up on pieces, and could have still made it highly competitive. Personally, I love making a person work for any checkmate. I have been down to a King vs. 2 queens before, and made the person goof in such a way that I still got a draw. I wish there was an honor system on this site, where we could take a survey on different players......
99 ( +1 | -1 ) The practice you describe is very common and with good reason; it's the polite thing to do. Forcing you opponent to play on when you hold a completely lost position basically tells him that you think very little of his skill, that he's so poor a player that he will botch even a trivially won game. Of course, you have the right to play on if you wish, but dragging the game out needlessly is rather insulting. This is especially true in correspondence chess, when playing on can drag a game out for weeks. Far better to start a fresh game.
In your particular position, White has no way to make the game "highly competitive". He's down a queen for a knight, his pieces aren't active, he has no sources of counterplay, and his c6-knight is hanging. After White retreats his knight to safety, Black will simply play ...Bxc5 and castle off, leaving White with absolutely nothing to do except shuffle pieces around aimlessly until he gets mated.
41 ( +1 | -1 ) I agree that, the sense of achievement and a boost of confidence achieved when putting someone in checkmate is attractive, and such an ending is almost perfect. However, if we reverse this, the pain of defeat, is even more demoralising. Most people try to put up as much resistance as they can, however when all seems hopeless, the most polite thing to do is Resign. It makes the defeat more manageable.
53 ( +1 | -1 ) wellI used to be all for quiting in a lost game, but, I played a game last night( where I played my first !! move!! according to the master at the tourney) but then I messed up the endgame. I was down a peice, but there where only 2 pawns on the board( my K-R-P vs K-R-B-p) I sacked the pawn to get into a stalemate( exept I had my rook) and I just started checking him and got a draw. so I now think that if you have chances you should play on. but if you are down a Q for a peice or just down a peice with very little drawing chances- you should reisgn
61 ( +1 | -1 ) caldazarResigning may be polite, but a couple of times I was able to win after losing my queen in a silly way (actually once I lost 2 queens in a silly way, in the same match). I resign only when I have only the king left, that's to say when I'm in a situation in which I can drag the game for, say 10 moves, but with no hope to go anywhere. And this is especially true on tournaments, because you never know, maybe your opponent timeouts. And even when I realize that my opponent is going to checkmate me in 1 or to movesI don't resign, because I prefer to give him/her the satisfaction to move thier pieces and say MATE!
78 ( +1 | -1 ) what's the problem.Hogcall, I'm not sure I quite understand why Tursas' resignation was such an issue for you.
It's not dishonerable for a player to resign when they think a position is unwinnable. As Caldazar has said it is common practice at any level. I for one prefer that a player resigns when they have suffered a significant loss of material and are unlikely to win without a major blunder on my part. I'd also do it myself.
I don't think there is much satisfaction in beating an opponent when they have lost a major piece -not through the brilliance of my play - but because they have made a serious error. And I don't think the 'higher quality' win you seek will come from that sort of game. I'm on Tursas side. But I wouldn't worry about it too much, Hogcall - after all a win is a win.
83 ( +1 | -1 ) snowdogWell, as I said, you have the right to play on if you wish. And definitely, if you have even the slightest chances of counterplay or drawing opportunities, you should play on. I guess it also depends on what level you play at. What constitutes "trivially won" is much different at the grandmaster level than at the amateur level.
I do like that you allow your opponent to checkmate you if you decide to play on, though. If you're going to force your opponent to play on even when you know you're lost, at least allow your opponent the satisfaction of actually mating you. It doesn't bother me personally if my opponents force me to play on and resign one move from mate, but I know it irks others, especially in OTB tournament situations where there's value in wrapping up games quickly so that you can rest for the next round.
56 ( +1 | -1 ) caldazarI've never played OTB tournaments, but I guess time assumes a different value in that situation.
What I do think is that here on GK, there are thousands of players, some resign quickly, some hang on till the very end. As everyone of us is different, there's always the chanche that someone behaviour can be irritatating, still is a legitimate behaviour. So I agree with you, I don't bother if I have to play on or someone resign too early (from my point of view) or whatever.. I'm here to have fun and learn, not to get pissed.
51 ( +1 | -1 ) There are no rules to resigning, and you cannot say that just becuase you are a queen down you should resign. There are times when tactical wonders can save the game, and especially in OTB chess, if you have more time that your winning opponent and they seem to be in time trouble, you can always try to put up much resistance and make their win difficult. It may seem harsh, but such psychological factors can save games.At other times, you should trust your intuition and Resign.
48 ( +1 | -1 ) Resign, please!In my opinion, resignation IS a polite thing to do when you're completely lost! I am not talking about those murky positions where material doesn't count as much... Another thing: I am a team captain in OTB chess, and I usually ask my players to fight to the bitter end in important matches, especially when time is a factor (stalemate?). But this is correspondence chess(!!!), and I personally REALLY hate it when somebody forces me to play for days a completely won position (I'm not mentioning names....) :(
88 ( +1 | -1 ) I think resigning in a lost position is the polite thing to do. I've noticed that lower rated players here will hang on to the bitter end, and I think the reason for that is they feel a game ends in a checkmate, while I think higher rated players understand when a position is lost, and that the better players are not going to make the sort of blunder that lets them back into a lost game.
I find it a bit aggravating when someone hangs on when down a rook or more, (yes, its happened multiple times) those games are clearly wins for me, but it can take a while to force the win, I'd rather move on to a new game at that point. Likewise, when I'm down a substantial amount, I don't want to prolong my own misery plus forcing my opponent to close the deal, so I tend to resign once I've clearly lost.
58 ( +1 | -1 ) If you think......the position is unwinnable or undrawable for you, then I think it is the smart thing to do to resign. Why waste your time and your opponent's? On the other hand a person might play on because they don't realize their position is hopeless. If I know my opponent and see that I cannot win or draw, I resign. If I don't know him or her, I will play to see if he or she knows what he or she is doing. If I see I am playing a knowledgeable opponent, I will then resign. But remember, no one ever won by resigning. And no one has to resign. If my opponent doesn't resign, I do not berate him -- it is his right to play on. I just get more practice in trying to end the game quicker.
56 ( +1 | -1 ) My 2 CentsI can see that there are some beginners and some [more] advanced players arguing here. On an amateur level; yes, you can play on after hanging a rook. But once you get into intermediate stage, if you are down a piece with no positional compensation, you might as well resign.
One could say that this alludes the point that there is a chance that you could come back. But if your playing a tournament game, which lasts 2+ hours, you usually wouldn't want to sit at a table for 5 hours knowing you will lose.
70 ( +1 | -1 ) this is trueI agree, there is no reason to play on in a = position- exept your down a peice, espesially against a better opp. although there are exeptions- here is an example: recently I played a game against a master- it was a good opposite c/bishop endgame, after a while I dropped a pawn, and it advanced to the point I had to sac my B for it( we both had a rook on the board) I was about to quit when I saw there were only 2 pawns (1 for him 1 for me) and my K was in stalemate I gave him a chance to take my poisioned pawn and he did- I then just started checking and got a draw- if it weren't for that chance of a draw I would have quit
so there are instances where, when playing a better player you sholdn't quit, but not many
113 ( +1 | -1 ) i agree w/ hogcallok, here's what i have to say... tursas , in the game against hogcall ( board #525926 ),resigned after his/her queen was taken... however, after 14. Nd-f3 Qe4, it seemed obvious to me that tursas's queen was in danger, because tursas had no way to recapture if hogcall did take his/her queen... when tursas did not either reinforce his queen, or move it to safety, it seemed to me like s/he was just asking for it to be taken... which is what happened... my point is, if tursas knew his/her queen was in jeopardy, and s/he knew s/he would resign if his/her queen was taken without recapture, then why didn't s/he do anything about it? Also, if s/he didn't see the threat on his/her queen, and that was the reason s/he lost it, how skilled of a player could s/he be? I mean, I admit, we all make mistakes at times, but when an opponent of mine makes a move, i make it a point to atleast see all the places that the newly moved piece can attack... to me, the threat on tursas's queen was way too obvious to be missed...