Should you ever resign? Masters do, IMs do, GMs do, World Champions do. So what do you think?
Well, my answer to that is no, I should not because I don't fall into any of the categories mentioned above & I like the endgame practice... not to mention that there's always the hope of a draw!
Should you ever resign? Masters do, IMs do, GMs do, World Champions do. So what do you think?
Well, my answer to that is no, I should not because I don't fall into any of the categories mentioned above & I like the endgame practice... not to mention that there's always the hope of a draw!
My point is to emulate good players, not just in style but also in substance. Meaning: Pick up knowledge and skill until you know what is happening on the board. You'll know when to resign and when to accept a draw for that matter.
If you are learning things by playing games out beyond what even you think is reasonable in the competitive sense, then fine but remember that chess is a social game and you may be annoying the other player. Sometimes a chess friend is good for not just you the person but for you the player. I've had lots of little chess teachers (opponents/friends) in my career and I don't know where I'd be chess-wise if I never had them. Heck, if you want to play the game out you can always put your comp on a low level and play it out as many times and as many ways as you wish and get a multitude of whatever lessons you wanted from your game.
It's good practice for games when your opponet has limeted time
It matters who you are playing and how much youre losing by. If you are playing your friend, both not ranked players, then you really shouldnt resign, unless you are losing by a huge difference where even one mistake wouldnt matter. but if you are playing someone whos a grand master, or even some one that goes to tournaments and such, then you are just prolonging the inevitable
I personally don't resign much, it depends on who my opponent is...and if you tell me to resign, i will drag the game on for as long as i can...But really, if i know the popsition i'm in, and i know im lost, but...if theres even .00001% chance of stalemate, i will play on.
Don't stop believing!
no
People that never resign remind me of the crawdad on the railroad tracks. When the train comes the crawdad raises up with the claws ready to do battle with the train. I assume they are totally unaware of reality.
When doing battle is certain death, it\'s time to step off the tracks.
When it become obvious you\'ve lost it\'s time to resign, and review it as a lesson learned.
My belief is that those that never resign in the name of learning their end game, are the same one's that never review any of their losses to see if they are able to determine where they went wrong.
Continuing in the name of bettering your end game skills is a lie your telling you self.
Man up, and learn the game. -
As I said from the very start, I am only an average player talking about a game that is lost. The example I gave was to have only a king against an army.
I have little respect for those that might feel some sort of accomplishment for players that insist on playing to the bitter end in the hopes that the other player will make a mistake or time out and they might claim a draw or even a win. Continuing in the name of bettering your end game skills is a lie they are telling themselves.
Pawn are 1 point and the knight and bishop are 3 points etc. I know of no other point system.
in principle no. if you resign there is no chance of making a comeback what-so-ever. by continuing you have a chance your opponent will make an error. by playing on you increase your chances of a win or draw dramaticaly from 0% to maybe .5 or 1 %.
Suppose your loosing the game which is one or two moves from mate. what would you do?
1. go on vacation in the hopes your opponent times out.
2. wait the maximum time allowed in the hopes your opponent.
3. make the final one or two moves forcing your opponent to put you in check mate.
4. resign.
5. something else.
In this example it's white's move. Should white resign or continue to play?
Whether (3) or (4) totally depends on the situation. Only a couple days ago I posted an endgame where I drew a lower-rated opponent--he had a mate-in-3 on the board and more than ten minutes on his clock. I let my intuition guide me.
Presort> In this example it's white's move. Should white resign or continue to play?
::shrug:: Doesn't matter too much as long as the moves are played quickly. It would take seconds to finish live or using conditional moves.
It's more annoying when an opponent drops a queen or a couple pieces and forces you to finish the game at the slowest allowable pace.
I neglected to say the above example was taken from a game I'm playing on the web and it has a 7 day time limit - at least one move every 7 days. Not that it matters. It's annoying and I've played several games in similar situations where my oponent just allowed the time to expire in lieu of making his final move before check mate.
i played killer-instinct-2406 in live chess, everyone!!!
i guess we all have different definitions of "when" we or our opponent is in a "hopeless" position. Hence we think we can play on and learn. it is really annoying that time control allows a person in a hopeless position to "play for time" - king against an army and one move every 14 days - i end up noting the people as "Avoid this person"!
having said that i am sure others playing me get frustrated when they believe they have won and i keep playing.
really difficult one.
It all depends... for instance... a beginner may not realize that a bishop (opposite color of queen square) + 2 doubled rook pawns & King (or one) is a dead draw if the lone king can get to one of the critical squares... I'm a B/A class player and didn't know this until recently.
I think there is a distinction that was not made by the original thread poster.
The reason ( I'm not a GM or IM or any title for that matter - so I am not speaking for them ) I think GM's will resign after only a few points or even on equal points but a bad position - is that they understand that their opponent is also highly rated and probably prepared for the match and is ready to calculate the winning lines necessary to finish out the position.
Conversely, I do not think the original thread poster nor many players on Chess.com ( all highly rated players aside ) can make that claim - that they are well prepared for every match, that they calculate all of the lines in detail many, many moves ahead, that they are experienced in high-level tournament play. That is not to say we don't try to play good chess - I know I do, but I am not arrogant enough to put myself on the GM level right now - so for players such as myself & other learners of the chess game, it may be instructional to see the various moves associated with a king vs army endgame.
Then there is the issue of playing for money & publicity & rating & status & performance that I would assume factor into GM play - something that I can for sure say I have not experienced given that I am not a professional chess player right now.
So to close I think there is a difference between trying to compare GMs and many players on Chess.com ( all GMs, IMs, FMs, CMs, whether women or men, aside ) I am talking about the average player - they may actually gain valuable experience from sticking out a match - no matter what the losing position looks like.