20 May 07
My considerations for whether to resign or not..
1) What is the material imbalance? The further behind I am, the more likely I am to resign.
2) How strong is my opponent's play? This is a good indicator of how likely they are to blunder.
3) What counterplay do I have? If I have at least a couple of semi-decent attempts to stop my opponent, or at least slow him down, I'll tend to work through those first.
4) Is he able to force promotion? A lot of times in endgame, an unopposed promotion means I have lost.
5) Is there a way I might be able to draw? If so, I'll try to do that.
6) Is mate imminent and obvious? If so I may resign. On rare occasion, I may allow them the honor of mate, since imminent mate usually means the game will soon be over anyways.
It seems there are various thoughts on resignation, but the concept is for the benefit of the losing side, more than for the winning side, in my thinking.
20 May 07
Originally posted by diskamylWhat about a rook down but a pawn up?
I think when a player is down more than a rook, and if it's not an endgame where there are still drawing chances, and if the winning side is a consistent player, a player should resign.
And what about a rook down but a pawn at the seventh?
And what about a rook down but opponent rook is pinned by his king and can't move?
And what about you having a rating of 2000 is one rook down agaisnst a opponent having a rating of 1000?
No, there can't be a definite rule when to give up. The players must decide for themselves.
20 May 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasThanks, Fabian. I always felt guilty for get the skulls 3min after
What about a rook down but a pawn up?
And what about a rook down but a pawn at the seventh?
And what about a rook down but opponent rook is pinned by his king and can't move?
And what about you having a rating of 2000 is one rook down agaisnst a opponent having a rating of 1000?
No, there can't be a definite rule when to give up. The players must decide for themselves.
tigerking does logon:
Game 1934964
Game 1934971.
I´m feeling better.
20 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasFabianFnas, yes, I see the point and think you are right. I want to take back my argument and bring forward a new one if possible 🙂
What about a rook down but a pawn up?
And what about a rook down but a pawn at the seventh?
And what about a rook down but opponent rook is pinned by his king and can't move?
And what about you having a rating of 2000 is one rook down agaisnst a opponent having a rating of 1000?
No, there can't be a definite rule when to give up. The players must decide for themselves.
a player should resign when he/she's down a rook with everything else being exactly equal (including ratings, and even including being the side to move). of course this is idealized and is not possible in chess, except for rook odds in the starting position (even then, being the side to move spoils the equality). though it cannot be possible, it could be a fictional yet useful referential basis for the decision. (so, I still agree with you, there can't be a definite rule when to give up)
20 May 07
Originally posted by diskamylI see your point, and I agree with you in this issue. It would be good if people realize they don't have a chance to win a particular game.
FabianFnas, yes, I see the point and think you are right. I want to take back my argument and bring forward a new one if possible 🙂
a player should resign when he/she's down a rook with everything else being exactly equal (including ratings, and even including being the side to move). of course this is idealized and is not possible in chess, except for ...[text shortened]... for the decision. (so, I still agree with you, there can't be a definite rule when to give up)
...but...
If two World Champions play to each other, only a slight difference, far less than a pawn, may make one to give up.
If two lower ranked, let's say around 1000 in raing play to each other, even a queen down is playable to a win.
So not only the material should be counted, also other imbalances should be counted, but one should not forget the difference in attitude between high rated players and low rated players.
If I blundered heavily to a 1000-player. Chances are good that he also make a blunder that would level the situation again. With a 2000-player?, no I don't think so.
Once an opponent resignated and i had to ask him why. He replied the base of his decision to give up and I didn't see any of this. His resignation came as strike from a clear sky. I didn't see the way to a win for me, but he did, and it was enough for him. (Strange...)
So my opinion is this - Only the player himself should decide when he should resign the game or not, no one other.
