Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 13 Aug '08 09:39
    When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?

    Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.

    On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.

    What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
  2. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 Aug '08 09:47
    Originally posted by sporadic
    When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?

    Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.

    On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.

    What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
    The stronger the players are the closer to the middle game they would resign because they could recognize a losing position quite early. So if you are a couple of pawns up and there are only two knights on the board, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that 99 times out of 100 one of the pawns busts through and becomes a queen, even if its 8 or so moves away. So faced with that situation, the losing side capitulates gracefully and does not force the other side to 'prove it' that the game is lost. It is more a matter of respect to quit when you see that kind of thing, because if you go on you are saying to the other guy, I don't think much of your endgame ability so I am going to make you prove it. If you just resign, you are saying, I respect your ability to win in this situation, you know you can win here, I know you can win here, lets save some time and go to the next game.
  3. Standard member ivan2908
    SelfProclaimedTitler
    13 Aug '08 10:05
    Originally posted by sporadic
    When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?

    Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.

    On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.

    What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
    I usually resign very early but if my opponent has some beautiful combination resulting in checkmate I didn't see on time, I would let him finish me that way.
  4. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    13 Aug '08 11:25
    Originally posted by sporadic
    When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?

    Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.

    On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.

    What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
    If you are only a few moves from a forced mate, resign.
    No sense prolonging the stuation. If you are a few moves
    from mating your opponent, who care if they resign! It's
    a win either way.
    bill718
  5. 13 Aug '08 12:39
    If my opponent opens with:

    1) e4 I resign. This would have been a wild wide open game with a quick attack and checkmate for him.

    2) d4 I resign. In closed positional play I get slowly crushed.

    3) c4/N-f3 I resign. Don't know nothing about English/hypermodern. I'll lose.

    4) a3/h3 I resign. What the hell is that?? Must be a secret weapon. I quit!
  6. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    13 Aug '08 14:04
    Originally posted by sporadic
    When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?

    Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.

    On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.

    What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
    resigning is an option for the losing player, not an obligation. the opponent has no say in it. you, and you alone, decide when you resign.

    asking someone to resign will most likely make him drag the rest of the game for as long as possible. which could be years in CC.

    that said, most experienced players will resign when the position is dead lost AND the last counterplay is exhausted. in practice it's the point where the mate becomes inevitable.

    but naturally you don't resign complicated forced mates etc. if you have the tiniest doubt that your opponent doesn't know how to do it. great examples are the KNB and Q vs R forced mates. you play on until you're sure.

    at no point does 'etiquette' play a part. chess has rules, it doesn't need an etiquette.
  7. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    13 Aug '08 14:35
    Originally posted by sporadic
    When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?

    Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.

    On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.

    What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
    Always avoid a mate by resigning. If you get mated, it means you didn't see it coming.

    I have only been mated at RHP 2 or 3 times. 2 of them were after being here a year or 2 and I just didn't see them. Happened in a span of about 2 weeks.

    P-
  8. Subscriber AttilaTheHorn
    Erro Ergo Sum
    13 Aug '08 14:50
    Originally posted by MontyMoose
    If my opponent opens with:

    1) e4 I resign. This would have been a wild wide open game with a quick attack and checkmate for him.

    2) d4 I resign. In closed positional play I get slowly crushed.

    3) c4/N-f3 I resign. Don't know nothing about English/hypermodern. I'll lose.

    4) a3/h3 I resign. What the hell is that?? Must be a secret weapon. I quit!
    >The shortest ever GM game was Fischer-Panno, Palma de Mallorca 1970.
    >The complete game was: 1.c4 Resigns.
  9. 13 Aug '08 15:47
    Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
    >The shortest ever GM game was Fischer-Panno, Palma de Mallorca 1970.
    >The complete game was: 1.c4 Resigns.
    Haha, I read that that was a staged protest though.

    Anyway, I tend never to resign even in a losing position.I always play for a draw via stalemate or perpetual check. I mean, if I was playing someone at or above the IM level I might consider it so as not to potentially insult their intelligence; however it's always possible that your opponent makes a mistake. Always.
  10. 13 Aug '08 16:02
    Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
    >The shortest ever GM game was Fischer-Panno, Palma de Mallorca 1970.
    >The complete game was: 1.c4 Resigns.
    No it's not. Shortest ever GM game is Kramnik - Topalov, 5th game, world championship 2006, in which Topalov introduced the infamous Topalov-Danailov gambit. The game ended in 0-1 after 0 moves.

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1431008
  11. 13 Aug '08 16:13
    Originally posted by schakuhr
    The game ended in 0-1 after 0 moves.

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1431008
    I don't understand. Is this machine error?
  12. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    13 Aug '08 16:22
    Originally posted by nihilismor
    I don't understand. Is this machine error?
    The game was lost due to the fact that Kramnik didn't move at all.

    You should look up the stories about this world championship somewhere e.g.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_World_Chess_Championship_2006
  13. Subscriber AttilaTheHorn
    Erro Ergo Sum
    13 Aug '08 16:23
    Originally posted by schakuhr
    No it's not. Shortest ever GM game is Kramnik - Topalov, 5th game, world championship 2006, in which Topalov introduced the infamous Topalov-Danailov gambit. The game ended in 0-1 after 0 moves.

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1431008
    >There are many examples forfeits in which no moves have been played. The 2nd game in the 1972 World Championship was perhaps the most famous, when Fischer refused to appear against Spassky.
    >However, my above example of Fischer-Panno was actuially played.
  14. 13 Aug '08 17:03
    Otb in a complex middlegame I once made a nice 8 move combo,including a double piece sac (not all worked of course,it involved some instinct),leading up to a pretty smothered mate.3 moves before conclusion my opponent saw the mate and resigned.I didn't like that.Bit of an anticlimax
  15. 13 Aug '08 17:16
    Originally posted by nihilismor
    I don't understand. Is this machine error?
    no he saw forty moves ahead, that the position was lost and resigned.