In the opening battle of the (fantastic) movie Gladiator, a member of
the Roman army says (of the last 'enemy' holdouts) "a people should
know when they're conquered!"
One could argue that it is still worth it to put up a good fight and at
least kill a few of your enemy even if you are good as dead...not so in
chess.
I recently played a game in which I had two bishops, two knights, two
rooks, 5 pawns and QUEEN too!! against 2 bishops and 3 pawns. NOt
to mention that my opponent's king was caught in the fray and two of
my pawns (although on their original squares) were passed pawns!!!
My material advantage was equal to that of THREE QUEENS and my
positional advantage was easily worth another!
My opponent played on and told me the object is mate and he was
not convinced I would mate him...well a few moves later he was quite
convinced.
A good fight is one thing but people who think the end of a game
must be via check mate are annoying and truly ignorant.
Definately annoying but it is their right to play on. I was once down 2
rooks and 2 pawns and was able to salvage a stalemate. If I was
playing against a better player, I would have resigned. Even the best
make silly mistakes.
What would be suffient material down to justify resigning? a pawn
against very good players is enough. Would you resign if you were a
pawn down against the top 50 players at RHP?
I would have resigned much earlier if I was in his position - but still
your opponent's right to make you play to mate.
those infamous words..."the correct move was to resign." This is
generally true. But I had a game once where I was up a queen, rook,
knight and maybe 5 pawns to his 2 pawns and I mistakenly
stalemated him to a draw! I learned a hard lesson and am unlikely to
make that mistake again, but you never know. Sometimes it can be
a little frustrating against opponents who try to hang in there longer
than they should. But since that game, I never hold it against them.
In my not so humble opinion, I assert that ALL players continue play
until they are certain their opponent has the skill to inflict mate.
My chess playing experience has taught me that the higher one's
rating the more efficiently the mating skill will be demonstrated. You
can quote me on that one...
I have been on both sides of the resignation dilema, though if I am
clearly not going to win, I will not drag it out and I will resign for one
important reason: playing it out takes away from the energy I can
devote to a game that I am more invested in. People who don't
resign these kinds of games are often seen as stalling, which they
may be, but I am also open to the reality that they just don't have
investment in the that particular game. Should they resign?
Probably, but if they don't I think their other games suffer. Therein
lies their punishment. Just my thoughts. Kirk
Against a clever opponent who has been driven into a corner, you
often have the toughest time mating. I think you should give due
consideration to him waiting it out a few moves hopeing to be able to
force a draw (even if this guy wasn't clever). Besides, whats a few
moves? Be patient and help out those who are striving to attain your
level of play.
You will never learn anything of value by studying lost endgames and
trying to figure out ways to bamboozle your opponent. Study the
game from the beginning and try to figure out where you went wrong,
why you went wrong, and how you would improve on your play should
that position or a position with similair ideas occur again for you. Part
of the game of chess is conducting yourself with etiquette and class.
That involves being a good sport and knowing when you are lost.
You forgot those who think a game is ended before a mate is given --
they are very annoying and amazingly insensitive, not to mention
arrogant!
Please consider this: one could argue (quite convincingly, too!) that
a "good" player would never accumulate such a material advantage
before finalizing his game with mate. You made a wonderful
argument to support your opponent’s contention, which was whether
you would mate him or not. I'm glad you were able to finally find your
way and do so!
Ummmm....no. My opponent made such horrible moves that pieces
were given away or lost to simple combinations...it just so happens
that this occured prior to the passage of enough tempi to create the
mating net. Why would I try to create a 12 move unclear mating
combination when I get a free rook of bishop in one move? I think
you would have to see the game before you make such a comment.
But congrats on your ability to assume and generalize.
Very well put hypermo! Anyone who would support the side of
someone who drags out a hopeless position doesn't know the
meaning of the word ettiquette. It is such a waste of time and energy
playing out these types of games. One would be much better served
to learn from his/her errors in the game and start a fresh game.
Resigning from a game when it's obviously lost is a courteous and
professional gesture, but it is still not required in any rule book I have
ever seen. It's an option that a player may choose to exercise, or
not.
There are several thousand people registered here at RHP. With that
many people, there is a very broad range of knowledge and
experience. Some here are seasoned veterans of the game, but many
are new to the game and are just learning the very basics. Many of us
have never been inside a chess club, or ever played a tournament or
any kind of rated game.
The RHP site is supposed to be an international community of people
who have come together on this site to enjoy this game.
Being labeled as "annoying and truly ignorant" just because a person
chooses to continue playing a lost game seems a little arrogant.