Go back
Would You Rather Resign or Play till the End if...

Would You Rather Resign or Play till the End if...

Only Chess

m

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
4432
Clock
25 Oct 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

After this two games, I'll never resign again 😉


Game 4111348 (I believe I can draw)
Game 4149512 (gonna win!)

both in progress, dont comment

p

Joined
11 Mar 07
Moves
22852
Clock
02 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

It depends.

DF
Lord of all beasts

searching for truth

Joined
06 Jun 06
Moves
30390
Clock
02 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by monteirof
After this two games, I'll never resign again 😉


Game 4111348 (I believe I can draw)
Game 4149512 (gonna win!)

both in progress, dont comment
What can I say? Nothing! (they are in progress).

Just perhaps that whether to play on depends on the strength of your opponent. If you have a "lost" game and you know that your opponent knows how to win it resign but if you can generate counterplay or are not sure your opponent knows how to win play on.

By all means if your opponents time bank is low and you think you can win on time then play on, time after all is part of the game.

f
Crack Suicide Squad

Ellicott City, MD

Joined
25 Jan 05
Moves
57068
Clock
02 Jan 08
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
What can I say? Nothing! (they are in progress).
Well, they're done now, that was posted in October or something 😉

p

Joined
11 Mar 07
Moves
22852
Clock
02 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Some people prefer to play on even after they accidentally accept a draw.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=83672

MA

Joined
02 Apr 07
Moves
2911
Clock
02 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stevetodd
I would rather resign, there's nothing I can learn from hanging on for a blunder. I am here to learn and enjoy, not hang on for some meaningless rating points that probably will not be coming my way in any case. Otb is differnt, especially if I have a time advantage, or we are both short f time.
I'm not advocating playing on under all conditions. But I think that there is something that can be learned by hunkering down in a bad position and coming up with the move that, as your opponent, you would least like to see. Then doing the same thing the next move. And the next. And the next.

That something is mental toughness and is quite valuable in chess. If you can manage, in a bad position, to keep playing well long enough, your opponent -- especially in an amateur game -- may well make an error that revives your game.

To say that playing for an error is "cheap" overlooks the fact that in chess the only way to EVER get any advantage is for your opponent to err. So, playing and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake is the norm, not an exception. If both sides play perfectly, a draw will occur.

The only question is, how big of a mistake must your opponent make, and how likely is it that a player with the knowledge/skills thus far demonstrated by him will make such a mistake? That really depends on the specific circumstances.

Another point is that early resignation denies one the chance to learn endgame situations.

A third point is that amateur players may not always be the best judges of what constitutes a lost position, whether due to lack of tactical skills, strategic vision, or endgame knowledge. By assuming the worst rather than looking hard for a reasonable continuation, one may not only be denying one's self the chance for a draw (or even a win), but also the opportunity to develop these skills further.

buffalobill
Major Bone

On yer tail ...

Joined
28 Feb 05
Moves
16686
Clock
02 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
I'm not advocating playing on under all conditions. But I think that there is something that can be learned by hunkering down in a bad position and coming up with the move that, as your opponent, you would least like to see. Then doing the same thing the next move. And the next. And the next.

That something is mental toughness and is quite valuabl ...[text shortened]... chance for a draw (or even a win), but also the opportunity to develop these skills further.
Just plain insulting is someone playing on in the hopes of getting a stalemate. Recently I intended getting five Queens just to rub it in, but then changed my mind. It was getting just too irritating.

g

Joined
22 Aug 06
Moves
359
Clock
03 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by buffalobill
Just plain insulting is someone playing on in the hopes of getting a stalemate. Recently I intended getting five Queens just to rub it in, but then changed my mind. It was getting just too irritating.
Many years ago I was playing a slow tournament game against an Expert (I was [and am] a Class A player). All I had left was a King and a Queen. My opponent had two Queens, a bishop and a bunch of pawns. My King was stalemated, and my opponent couldn't stop me from placing my Queen right next to his King. Even though my Queen was en prise, he couldn't take it because of the stalemate. As a result, I got a draw.

Was I wrong to play out that dead-lost position?

B

Joined
01 Dec 07
Moves
1998
Clock
03 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

I always play on unless I cannot avoid mate or if you are up a ridiculous amount of material (IE: two Rooks and a Queen)

duecer
anybody seen my

underpants??

Joined
01 Sep 06
Moves
56453
Clock
04 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Game 4301926 this is why I always play on

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
Clock
04 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by pimpsandwich
Some people prefer to play on even after they accidentally accept a draw.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=83672
Let's be fair now. vietasianfox45 didn't ever accept the draw, accidentally nor otherwise.

Read the thread a little bit further...

s

Joined
08 Nov 07
Moves
1418
Clock
04 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Many years ago I was playing a slow tournament game against an Expert (I was [and am] a Class A player). All I had left was a King and a Queen. My opponent had two Queens, a bishop and a bunch of pawns. My King was stalemated, and my opponent couldn't stop me from placing my Queen right next to his King. Even though my Queen was en prise, he could ...[text shortened]... the stalemate. As a result, I got a draw.

Was I wrong to play out that dead-lost position?
There is a video on chessvideos.tv of a NM - by said NM - who sacs his Q right in the opening for some crazy initiative and attacking chances. It leads to a pretty hairy game with surprising winning chances, but after some accurate defence from his opp, the NM is, in his own words, just dead in the water. At that point he decided to play it out a little longer anyway and pulled off a stalemate.

If stalemate is good enough reason for an NM to play on, I say its enough reason for anyone else. Especially in blitz, or even OTB. In CC I doubt I have the patience to play out such a game, but I don't begrudge my opp trying to.

STS

Joined
07 Feb 07
Moves
62961
Clock
04 Jan 08
Vote Up
Vote Down

Only n00Bs insist on playing until they get checkmated.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.