Originally posted by koenigschlagerIt is never considered bad form to resign a game that you feel is hopeless. Quite the contrary, it is considered bad form to force your opponent to chase your king all over the board when you know that the loss in inevitable.
Is it generally considered good form or bad to resign a game that feels hopeless?
There is no right or wrong answer for when you should resign, though. For instance, you could be in a completely lost endgame, but you get the feeling your opponent doesn't know what he's doing. In this case I would play on. Once I see that he knows how to win the game though, I'd resign.
Originally posted by koenigschlager" Feeling " can be misleading . Analyze the position objectivly . Look at all imbalances... material, space, developement, piece position.
Is it generally considered good form or bad to resign a game that feels hopeless?
I've never understood why many players resign as soon as they're down material; that is only one advantage. No one would resign because they are behind in space, or developement, yet they have lost those advantages .
Does the opponent have a weakness you can attack ? When I think I am in a lost position, I try to attack, with any threat I can make. Make your opponent snuff out your counterplay.
Play out the position on the analyze board . Can you find a reasonable defense ?
Chess is a fighting game .... fight !
Only a high ranked player has any cause to be impatient if you want to play out the game. If he's that highly ranked, then he has nothing to learn. But if you are a beginner, you should always play it out even when you think you are going to lose. If you are playing a medium rated player and he get frustrated, maybe he needs to work on his mating skills or it wouldn't be so hard to finish the game. But as a beginner, there's often something you can learn even when you are losing.
So while it is true that it is never considered poor etiquette to resign, it is also poor etiquette to get huffy with an opponent that wants to play it out. Unless you think you have new nothing to learn, play it out! A good player will appreciate that you want to learn and get better.
there is a certain absurdity sometimes though. I've had games where I've got, say, a knight, a rook, and 3 (passed, duh) pawns (connected, too) to my opponent's lone king, and they haven't resigned. There's a certain feeling of "oh, why should I even bother to take the effort of mating him with the rook? I'll just queen all my pawns." Gets tiresome, chasing kings around the board, slowly closing the square, etc. etc. etc. It's like "look, buddy. Save us both the pain, ok? I'd resign for you if I could, but I can't."
My rule is: If one or the other players has an endgame position so lopsided that my mother (who has played maybe 5 games of chess in her life) could beat Capablanca with it, resign for pete's sake!
I've half a mind, in many of these positions, just to offer a draw to be sarcastic. Problem is, they'd no doubt finally use their shriveled brains and take it.
I tend to resign too early, though. Mainly because, when I make a gigantic blunder, it's just too depressing to continue. Like -- in one recent game I just aimed for the classic "win a pawn back and prevent enemy king from castling in the king's gambit when the enemy bishop pins the kingside knight to the queen on f3" via Bf7+ Kxf7 Ng5+ K moves Qxg4. Oldest trap in the book.
Only... ooops... it was against the fisher defense. g4 was covered by the queen. So not only did I blunder the bishop and the knight, but I was about to lose the queen for the other bishop -- it had no flight squares whatsoever.
My point is, I don't CARE whether or not there is still some play in this game. It's so painful to play at this point that I just want it gone. Resigned on the spot.
I never mind if my opponent wants to play out a losing game. It is, after all, their decision to go on. The only REAL problem I have is with players who slow down their play DRAMATICALLY when the result is no longer in question.
I've been in games that took less than 3 days to get 50 moves in, but then take another 3 weeks to finish because my opponent doesn't want to resign or play out the loss.
Every game you are in, make a decision to demonstrate proper respect for your opponent. Everyone now and then feels like they lost to a lesser opponent, and that's fine. Learn from it and move on. When the game is over, win or lose, resign or not, your opponent will walk away with an opinion of you. Try to make sure it isn't a bad one.
Decanter, I couldn't agree with you more. If you resign or not is a player's choice. I don't really think they demonstrate bad judgement either way. I've seen a few stalemates before where one side had a hopeless position and I don't feel there's any reason not to play for a stalemate. Now, I've seen several players that do exactly what Decanter said. Drag out a losing position very obviously and deliberately (sp?). This I have a problem with. If there's a big no-no, that's it. Don't play 40 moves in one day then move once a week when you start losing. You just make yourself look silly- players can see that you are frequently moving in all the rest of your games and a vacation flag doesn't fool anyone. If you've losing then keep playing or resign!
Yes, I've got that sort of problem now in an endgame, where I have a rook and bishop and pawn which are blocking his 3 pawns, and my rook has cut his king off from protecting the pawns. Due to the potential length of time it takes for a game to finish, would it be an idea to be able to claim a win to save people a lot of time? They have to present a viable set of tactics to finish the game, showing that they will not stalemate their opponent.
Originally posted by NecrophileJust how would this system be implemented? Surely you're not asking Russ to go all over this site, looking for won endgames that haven't been resigned, and adjudicating them, are you?
Yes, I've got that sort of problem now in an endgame, where I have a rook and bishop and pawn which are blocking his 3 pawns, and my rook has cut his king off from protecting the pawns. Due to the potential length of time it takes for a game to finish, would it be an idea to be able to claim a win to save people a lot of time? They have to present a viable set of tactics to finish the game, showing that they will not stalemate their opponent.
How often does the problem occur? My idea is that the potential winner would press a button that would automatically send a message to a group of trustees (or one of) who would act as (an) adjudicator(s). It probably is too much work as no doubt there will be many who abuse their position and the situation would have to be reviewed etc, and further would make people less likely to support the site as they wouldn't have to worry so much about "dead" games.
How often does it occur? Quite frequently, when you consider the number of games being played on this site. The task of adjudicating every single game that was resignable would be monumental. I will agree that adjudication may be a good solution for a tournament round that is being held up by one game that is one-sided, but other than that, it's not necessary. If you want to ensure no opponent will drag out a game against you for months at a time, the best way to do this is to make sure you only play games with a 1 day or 3 day timeout, and a large timebank.
It's not to uncommon to win with a material deficit. When a person is up material they tend to play carelessly. And the player who is down material seems to play extremely cautiously, or put the opponent in such a bind, that they end up sacrificing material, just to relieve some pressure. Don't give your opponent more respect than they deserve. Resign when you know he will beat you, the end is near and there is nothing you can do about it. There is no need to insult their intelligence.
It could still work, but you might have to wait a long time for your claim to go through, with the oldest cases getting priority, so it wouldn't solve every problem, but might deal with a few and brighten up someones day. People who ask for a win when they are not in an obvious winning position are blocked from the system for a week or so. It can just be something some trustees can do in their spare time when they get bored🙂