I don't think I've been checkmated on this site once. I always resign when it's quite clear I am going to lose. I think it's stupid to play on when you can rather use your time and brain power on games you can win. Winning situations can sometimes be fun, because if he doesn't resign I'll start toying with him - seeing how many Queens I can promote, for example. Usually they then resign quickly.
I think most players resign when they see they have a lost game. Just that some take longer than others to recognise the fact.
Originally posted by buffalobillIf I were about to resign and saw my opponent start needlessly making queens I'd play on in the hopes of getting stalemated.
Winning situations can sometimes be fun, because if he doesn't resign I'll start toying with him - seeing how many Queens I can promote, for example. Usually they then resign quickly.
I think most players resign when they see they have a lost game. Just that some take longer than others to recognise the fact.[/b]
Originally posted by XanthosNZWell, I can remember the first time I saw someone resign and was quite astounded. Of course, I later realized that there wasn't anything shocking about resigning in chess.
It sure is lucky we have you to tell us all about those 'uneducated players'.
And pretty much all chess players except for maybe GMs are uneducated when it comes to chess, I know I am ignorant of a lot of and certainly most of the points, both finer and more obvious, of chess. I read an article on chessbase where Kramnik said that he loved chess because he always found something new to learn. If Kramnik can still find ways to be more educated about chess I'm sure all of us RHP players can too.
Just resign. There is no point in carrying on in a lost position. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Im playing someone who has been totally lost for at least 10 moves so I just promoted a pawn to bishop (that makes it bishop and knight against king). It's the only way I can make it interesting.
Originally posted by GambitzoidWhen you are just starting to learn chess you should carry on to checkmate every time. You won't learn anything if you just resign every time you are losing.
Well, I can remember the first time I saw someone resign and was quite astounded. Of course, I later realized that there wasn't anything shocking about resigning in chess.
And pretty much all chess players except for maybe GMs are uneducated when it comes to chess, I know I am ignorant of a lot of and certainly most of the points, both finer and more o ...[text shortened]... ik can still find ways to be more educated about chess I'm sure all of us RHP players can too.
Hi...I'd like to add just a few points if I might, though in general I agree with everyone in this thread. The general rule accepted seems to be that when there is no longer anything to be gained by playing, you should resign, not for your opponents sake alone, but also for yours. Now, the key phrase here is "no longer anything to be gained." For hobby and club players, there is something to be gained in playing every game out until nearly mated. Regardless of the situation, a game is a 50/50 venture, and though you may not win a game, you never lose the right to keep playing it until mated or some other game-ending scenario is reached.
Every player at every level, including GMs, blunders. This means that even if you're in a losing position, your opponent could blunder away the game in a single move. Run nearly any non-professional game through a computer and you'll see winning opportunities won and lost at several points throughout the game. A winning opponent can also be a careless opponent. Having a won game can lead to carelessness and a losing opponent who is playing for life and limb can often turn the tables. I've heard it put by others, "you'll never win a game by resigning."
Now, if you've a lone king on the board facing three enemy queens, you'll probably not learn much by playing it out. However, is your opponent careless enough to accidentally stalemate you? Then play it...especially if a tournament point is at stake.
I think the best way to express myself here is to say that anyone winning a game should be prepared to play it to the bitter end. It is a matter of etiquette to resign when all is lost, however, it's a bigger matter of etiquette on the part of the winning player to give the losing player the right play their pieces and their game how they choose, even if it seems senseless. If the opponent is losing, playing carelessly, and just continuing to play out of spite, then it's up to the winner to methodically crush them and demonstrate to them, in a serious fashion, that they should perhaps take up checkers instead.
Ranulf
Originally posted by XanthosNZOh yeah that's a very nice logical comeback, except for...
When you are just starting to learn chess you should carry on to checkmate every time. You won't learn anything if you just resign every time you are losing.
Of course you could learn something from resigning in a lost position. Go back and look at the mistake that lead to your loss. The point is you cannot learn anything from deciding whether to move your bishop or your king when the opponent has two rooks and a knight and you have only the bishop. All the moves lead to losing. However, if you resign you could spend your time looking over the errors that lead to your lost position, which is much more effective than staring at a completely lost board with no clue on how to proceed.
I believe one should continue until you, yourself are certain you cannot stop the pending checkmate. Until that time I would continue. And I would consider it extremely bad manners to be ASKED to resign. The only time I would ask someone to resign would be if they had cheated or broken the rules somehow. But that doesn't really apply with internet chess as it is not possible to know...is it?
When to resign? Count the blunders.....figure one serious mistake for each class below Master. i.e. a 1400 will make 4 blunders. If you're rated 1500 figure on making 3 blunders.
If your position is really bad, and you are ahead (or is it behind?) in the blunder count, might as well resign and move on to another game.
Originally posted by GambitzoidI disagree. How else will a beginner learn why an advantage of two rooks is so devastating? The point system (Q=9, R=5, etc.) is taught arbitrarily to the beginner, but he doesn't feel the effect of that 10-point deficit until he's played with it against a decent player.
The point is you cannot learn anything from deciding whether to move your bishop or your king when the opponent has two rooks and a knight and you have only the bishop. All the moves lead to losing.
Originally posted by Whats goin on ehIt is sad and stupid that people can get in to stalemate at this site otehr then a king,pawn vs a king.
there are a lot of threads that try to answer this. Some people do, some don't.
I usually don't resign because I play people around the 1200 rating and they are prone to blunders, like me, and accidently causing a stalemate. I know this doesn't usually apply to higher levels, but stranger things have happened in my games.
You can bring up a game to look at the move to make wure it is not in a stalemate of the move you will make.
And also I just put people into check it I have to so taht a stalemate will not happen.
And I have read books on how to win with just one piece (meaning king and queen or king and rook) so it is impossible for me in that position to stalemate.
Lose with grace and resign in a timely manner. If you are a lot of material down and don't have sufficient compensation, it is time to lay down your arms. This way you show your respect for both chess and your opponent. – Svetlana Matveeva
As chess players' egos grow faster than Elo's, the art of graceful resignation has long been forgotten. One can only reminisce about the good old days when people knew how to lose. Alexander Alekhine may have been a drunk and anti-Semite, but he certainly had manners: he showed up for the last game of his losing match in 1935 wearing a tuxedo, and gave his "Hurrah to the new World Champion!" – Alex Yermolinsky