Originally posted by pointIn my view of this, you probably won't get a stalemate if your opponent has pawns left on the board. It is possible, but the chances are very slim. I'll usually only play on if I have a rook or queen left--anything that can force perpetual check. Or I might go for the 3 repetition draw or something, but hopeless situations, like my opponent has 6 queens or something...yeah, that game's pretty much over.
Some people are jerks who just want to make you work for the win. Some just play on in the hopes of getting a stalemate, and I'm sure some people are both. Look at it as practice.
Just don't get careless and stalemate them, it only encourages them.
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugIn this position with black to move, I thought about continuing but resigned instead.
Just resign and stop wasting everyone's time!
The position is hopeless, but this is one of 26 games my opponent was playing at once (some had already finished). Continuing might slow down my opponent enough to give other players more time to think. It wouldn't slow him down much, however, so I threw the towel in. IM John Donaldson's score 21 wins, 1 loss, 4 draws.
Chance of getting a win or draw in a position where you are down material or are in a bad position = slight. Chance of getting a win of draw when you resign = zero.
Perhaps our philosophy of chess is different. I think you should play your best and try to get some counterplay no matter what. I will keep a game going as long as possible because I know my opponent is human and can make mistakes. I also know that on RHP a player can have any number of things happen in their life that will make them stop playing chess. People get married, die, and move away. While the chance is slight I will try to exploit it, instead of excepting defeat.
Do what you feel like doing. If you want to resign fine, if don't whatever as long as you move within a reasonable amount of time.
Personally though, if someone prolongs the game vs me, and it's OTB or say Blitz, anything but CC because the moves just take to long, I torture them slowly. Very Very slowly. First I get rid of all his pieces, and then promote every single pawn, Get X number of queens, and then go after him.
That will teach them!
Of course if i'm in hurry then I just finish them off efficiently and leave like on CC or if I wanna go for lunch or home in an OTB game.
Originally posted by Sir Loosalot"inrespectful"? How about "DISrespectful"
I have opponnets playing on with a queen or a rook less.
Asked them why: They say they learn from it. However, its inrespectful in my opinion.
SL
Unless you are indeed a GM/or playing a GM there is no real point in resigning unless you are indeed cooked. When there are about a dozen peices left on the board, and some of them happen to be yours, I say: play on. You can at least make a slight come back and not look like a total newbie.
I think the answer to when it is time to resign is when you are comfortable resigning.
Reason why you might resign:
- to save your energy to concentrate on other games or rounds.
Reasons why you might not resign:
- to learn from your mistakes
- to force opponent to finish you off. In tricky endgames, this potentially could be more taxing on your opponents than you. (eg KBN-K endings).
- Because you don't want to. Honestly, your opponent has no right to demand that you resign, and if the game is a foregone conclusion, then it should not be a great mental strain for them to finish the game.
In other words, resigning makes sense when it's to *your* advantage.
You are Black, and it's White's move. He plays 18.Ncxd5. What do you do? I resigned. The guy was rated 1885, and if he found that move, he's not likely to blow the game later, so why waste time? Against a lower rated palyer I would have played on a few more moves just to see. I once won a N in the opening against an IM and he played on because he reckoned I'd blunder it back later; he was right. Against a GM he probably would have resigned. Point: it's all relative to how good the opponent is whether it's justified to play on in a hopeless situation.
"While playing in the 1975 Ohio Chess Congress, I had a chance to see first hand what a standup guy (IM) Milan (Vukcevich) was. The overwhelming favorite to win, he was upset early by an A player from Cincinnati by the name of Perry Sill, who beat him with a book trap in the Schliemann Variation of the Ruy Lopez in 19 moves. Many players in this situation would have been very angry and stomped out, but Milan congratulated his young opponent and stayed in the tournament for the remaining rounds despite no longer having any chance to win the event." From the USCF Web Site. I don't know who wrote this, but I was there also. He was a class act.
It depends on time controls....
1 0 games i have absolutly no problem going all the way - afterall, its only a minute of my time.
5 min games to 15 min games i don't mind playing on.
but over the board, longer games - or correspondance -- (where you may have to wait a long peroid of time per move) i would be rather annoyed and would rather they resigned than simply play on or "stall"...a lost game
as for resigning being good manners i find it rather irritating....much of the time
a example would be this....
- after 30 or so moves my oppenant is a minor piece down, after 40 moves, a minor piece and a few pawns down with NO COUNTERPLAY.
but instead of resigning here [move 40], he/she waits until i am 1 move away from mate...then resign...
as for real examples - well out of my 10 completed games i found these....perhaps if i went through my 1000 odd FICS games i would have found better examples (but that involved going through 1000 games)
so....
Game 1838941 here my openant has timed his resignation nicely.... - faced with the choice of "lose material" or "mate in 2" he has resigned - which i am thankful for - because that endgame could have gone on for a while....but at the same time i still had to "work" for the win -- it wasn't **"handed"** to me....
**i.e if someone resigned after the loss of a pawn**
Game 1839071 here - my openant decided to resign not when his king was in the centre attacked from all sides, no, he resigns 1 move from mate....
now, was that the "polite" thing to do? make me play on only to deprive me of mate??