Resigning lost causes

Is it just a courtesy to resign lost causes? Say one player makes a dumb move early in the game and exchanges a queen for nothing, should he resign?

An early blunder, even a serious one, won't necessarily loose you the game, it will simply make your task more difficult from then on. Personally speaking, I would only resign when the position was entirely hopeless, that is to say when I could see checkmate looming, until then I would continue to fight. You never know, your opponent may also make a serious error which evens things up again.

Exactly right!

Plus, there's always the possibility that a relatively inexperienced opponent could stalemate you ... even fairly experienced players will sometimes do that when they have an overwhelming material advantage...they'll position themselves for the kill, and then suddenly realize that your King has nowhere to move...

I learned early on (in Jr High) that even a seemingly lost cause can be won... I was playing black, and I had a K, R and N ... my opponent (who just learned how to play chess that year in school...I had already been playing for 4 or 5 years by that time) had his queen, both rooks and several pawns... his K was in a castled position, with just one 'escape' square available in front of him...

Instead of finishing the job and destroying me, he was intent on promoting another pawn to a Queen... I managed to cover the escape square with my knight, and I won by a back-rank mate... he was totally stunned...

I would probably say that one possible rule of thumb regarding resigning would be that you should resign provided (1) your opponent has an adequate material advantage, and (2) they obviously know how to use it, and they are in the process of making the forced series of moves to force a mate...

e.g. if your opponent has a Q and R vs your King (and maybe another minor piece) and you can see that they are forcing your K to the edge of the board, it's clear that they know how to mate in that situation... you could save some time and resign...

But make sure that your opponent knows how to exploit the advantage to force a mate...and, as Stives said, there is always a possibility that they could blunder right back and even things up... being up a lot of material may make them relax and not concentrate as much, especially if the material advantage is gained very early in the game.


And one final thought... you can always learn something from a game, even a "lost cause"... you might figure out a way to place your King in a situation where, if your opponent does not make the one 'right' move, the game would end in stalemate... so try to learn something from every game... you can learn just as much, if not more, from losses than from wins... in fact, for beginners, losing games IS how you learn to play (or more specifically, how NOT to play).

This is understood. But....I don't think this player, nor many players in general, can overcome a queen deficit. Also, I am aware that stalemates are possible, but very unlikely, as I was drawn by one early in my chess playing years. I ALWAYS keep my eyes peeled for stalemates and perpetual checks.

Originally posted by TheBloop
Exactly right!

Plus, there's always the possibility that a relatively inexperienced opponent could stalemate you ... even fairly experienced players will sometimes do that when they have an overwhelming material advantage...they'll position themselves for the kill, and then suddenly realize that your King has nowhere to move...

I learned early on ( ...[text shortened]... or beginners, losing games IS how you learn to play (or more specifically, how NOT to play).

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Quite often I'll find a forced mate in a game I'm playing. I've made it a habit to message the opponent with the moves. Assuming that I didn't make a mistake in calculation it shows I know how to finish the position off and I'm not going to make a mistake. Most people resign at this point.

I resign quite early in positions that are lost for me. Mos ...[text shortened]... I'm in that position then the person I'm playing is usually going to know what they are doing.

At the level I play at, it's worth playing on unless mate is in a few moves and the difference in material is overwhelming.

I've played at least one game here where I lost a major piece early on (can't remember for sure which it was) and yet still won the game. My opponent was ranked slightly below me, I think (I hover in the 1200s).

And I play on against higher opponents because I think I might learn something from the experience.

Originally posted by welsharnie
I agree. Once you get to a standard of say 1500+, i'd say if you are a rook down it would be curteous to resign.

If i am playing a person equal in ability to myself and I am a piece down I will resign, unless I have an attack or some sort of compensation.

Originally posted by Dfthd
I agree too. At 1500s, I feel its quite disrespectful to play on when down a piece or rook with no compensation. People have better things to do than execute you.

Courtesty, etiquette, disrespect, bad manners--all that have nothing to do with it. YOU want him to quit because it'll save you the trouble of winning a won game. HE doesn't want to quit because he wants to delay losing rating points as long as possible and with the outside chance you will get frustrated and blunder. So when you make your decisions you both have your self-interest in mind. The rules allow a player to go on until checkmated, so be it. If you're on top of the won game, it should be easy to make a decent move, then go on to the next. Once, in the old days of postal, I got annoyed because my opponent in Finland hadn't moved in a month. I wrote a nastygram telling him he was disrespectful to wait that long and I would never treat him that way. His wife wrote back to say that he was dead. Let's get things in perspective. As fun and exciting as these RHP games are, they don't amount to a hill of beans. Make your move and kiss your kids or wife or girlfriend and get on with your life.

Game 1179812

Game 1153459

IMHO Alot of chess left to be played in these games!

Intersting how both players resigned on move 17.
Maybe its my lucky number.

Originally posted by buddy2
Courtesty, etiquette, disrespect, bad manners--all that have nothing to do with it. YOU want him to quit because it'll save you the trouble of winning a won game.

No one should ever be expected to resign. Resignation is a decision made by the player in the losing position, not the one in the winning position. It's simply made to save the one losing from playing a long and hopeless game. But if they want to play, you must prove that you can actually checkmate their king, because that's what chess is about. I recently finished this game against a high rated player. Game 1094843 I was surprised how long he played on, but he has the right.

I'm not so sure about that: after all, it's fairly common knowledge that all the 2000+ rated players are intensely evil.