why did he resign?

im pretty sure its because of the queen capture, but am i the only one that isnt afraid to play a game without a queen? i mean sure your chances of winning are practically cut in half, and if the person is way better cut about 75% off, but you can still win? anyone agree? ill post the game as soon as i found out how to find out the number/link thing


Game 1610623

(i did it!)

Originally posted by trallphaz
im pretty sure its because of the queen capture, but am i the only one that isnt afraid to play a game without a queen? i mean sure your chances of winning are practically cut in half, and if the person is way better cut about 75% off, but you can still win? anyone agree? ill post the game as soon as i found out how to find out the number/link thing


Game 1610623

(i did it!)

When you lose your queen to someone on a blunder for virtually nothing, your chances of winning aren't just cut in half. They become microscopic, especially againt a good player. Give your opponenet credit for knowing when he should resign. A lot of people will end up spending hours and hours of their lifetime playing on in hopeless games that they should have simply resigned.

Originally posted by Natural Science
When you lose your queen to someone on a blunder for virtually nothing, your chances of winning aren't just cut in half. They become microscopic, especially againt a good player. Give your opponenet credit for knowing when he should resign. A lot of people will end up spending hours and hours of their lifetime playing on in hopeless games that they should have simply resigned.

This is where the argument comes in. Just because a player loses their queen, they gain nothing by resigning. To me, it's far better to play it out to the bitter end, because different positions can come up that I might learn from. Of the 100 games that I've lost, 98 of those were by checkmate, and 2 from timeout. I have never resigned, and I never will.

Originally posted by Wildfire
I have never resigned, and I never will.

If it happened to me I'd say I prefer an end with horror instead of horror without end.

Depends on who i`m playing, what stage the game is in... if I blunder my queen (which I do sometimes) and its close to the endgame I usually resign.

He was down a queen and 2 pawns for a knight, with no initiative. Unless you are a rank beginner, there is nothing to be learned from playing this position out. If you are a rank beginner, then what you can learn is that there is no way to win this position if your opponent is reasonably skilled. It is a fair assumption that your opponent is at least as skilled as you if you get on the losing end of a position like this, so it makes sense that resigning is a reasonable thing to do.

for me it depends completely on 2 things:
1. My opponents rating
2. Position of the game.

This game, i continued even after losing my queen. However, had it been against a 1400+ player i would have resigned.
Game 1420577

Here is one game which I drew with a queen down. The opponent captured my queen and I couldn't even capture the minor piece with which he captured my queen but still I did not lose. It was against a very weak opponent though, below 1000.

Game 1555918

Originally posted by Wildfire
I have never resigned, and I never will.

I have never been checkmated (in recent memory), and I hope I never will.

Once you are behind by a winning margin against an opponent of similar or higher strength, the tiny chance of winning or drawing is really not worth the time wasted trying to achieve it. Chalk up the loss. Resign.

By all means spend time analysing your losses, but spend your playing time on winnable games.

I also resign lost games. Initiative, the position at hand and my opponents rating all factor in. However, I don't find I learn anything from playing on a queen down.

I played a game on ICC where I was easily winning, up a rook and a couple of pawns against 3 pawns or something like that. It was blitz so I thought I'd end it quick and promote a pawn at which point my opponent told me it was considered impolite to drag out the win. I would imagine just as many people would consider it impolite to keep playing if you're obviously lost.

Of course the amount of material you have to be down before you're definitely lost very much depends on the level of the players.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Once you are behind by a winning margin against an opponent of similar or higher strength, the tiny chance of winning or drawing is really not worth the time wasted trying to achieve it. Chalk up the loss. Resign.

I guess that might also depend on wether you are playing mainly for the wins or the joy of playing, on how competitive you are. people have different motivations, and a lost game can be perfectly interesting to some.

I go both ways. if there seems to be something interesting still possible, or something to learn about, I continue. then again, I'm a beginner, and most things are new to me. I probably wouldn't repeat same kind of lost endings over and over.

Bowmann's Wise Words

If one blunders away a whole Queen, one ought to resign on principle alone.

When you a beginner, i recomend playing out all your games. winning or not. It may seem rude, but even blitz or slow games, anyone can make a mistake.
You will also gain valuble tactical knowledge.
I know a few strong players who would give queen odds to lower rated players.
This is how they built up a sense of tactics and "swindles"

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
I have never been checkmated (in recent memory), and I [b]hope I never will.

Once you are behind by a winning margin against an opponent of similar or higher strength, the tiny chance of winning or drawing is really not worth the time wasted trying to achieve it. Chalk up the loss. Resign.

By all means spend time analysing your losses, but spend your playing time on winnable games.[/b]

so should you analyse a game in which you lost a piece like queen early or just any game you resigned?