1. Joined
    21 Aug '07
    Moves
    7914
    03 Jun '08 03:01
    Originally posted by patserx
    I don't understand why some people resign at the first sign of a loss. The reason most professional players resign after even a pawn advantage is that they can see the result of the game way before a person like me can. They can also better judge how their opponent is playing.

    BUT

    To me continuing to fight in an obviously lost position is just going for a cheap win. Although a win is a win.
    You are right, a win is a win so I don't think it's cheap to keep playing. Losing a Queen early or something catastrophic of that nature is generally due to an absolute blunder assuming players of roughly equal strength. In this case your opponent is the one getting the cheap win. You blundered, so it's not completely unreasonable to hope that your opponent may 'return the favour' later on. Unlikely, perhaps, but so was the initial blunder that gave away the game. No need to feel guilty or cheap.

    Personally I've come back to win from a lost position (in a correspondence game amazingly enough). My opponent just couldn't execute and ended up blundering right back. Couldn't believe it myself.

    Before resigning always ask yourself: if my opponent was playing Kasparov in this exact position, is there a 100% chance that he would win? If the answer is no, play on.
  2. Standard memberslappy115
    Slappy slap slap
    Under your bed...
    Joined
    22 Oct '05
    Moves
    70042
    03 Jun '08 15:44
    The way I look at it is whether or not you can turn the lose of a queen into an advantage. For instance, this game, I gave up my queen to capture two minor peices and a rook while letting my rooks pair up.

    Game 4943635

    However, there are games where I have lost my queen and was unable to come back.

    It all depends on your confidence without your queen. Two rooks and beat a queen but it you just give her away, it makes your battle very difficult.
  3. Joined
    19 Jun '06
    Moves
    847
    03 Jun '08 16:072 edits
    Originally posted by slappy115
    The way I look at it is whether or not you can turn the lose of a queen into an advantage. For instance, this game, I gave up my queen to capture two minor peices and a rook while letting my rooks pair up.

    Game 4943635

    However, there are games where I have lost my queen and was unable to come back.

    It all depends on your confidence without ...[text shortened]... Two rooks and beat a queen but it you just give her away, it makes your battle very difficult.
    Well, the premise of the thread is that you lose your queen due to a blunder, not willingly give it up in a favorable exchange of material. But I guess your post did give you a chance to show off your game. 😛

    Edit - OK, now that I look at your game again, I guess giving up the queen was a small blunder, so I guess I take back my smiley. But it's still not nearly as bad as losing the queen straight out.
  4. Standard membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16870
    03 Jun '08 16:16
    Originally posted by Korch
    If readers of this thread have misunderstood your post then please feel free to understand what did you mean with "average-ish chess players".
    someone who feels it necessary to use a chess database or openings book to make their moves here. 😛
  5. Standard membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16870
    03 Jun '08 16:17
    Originally posted by patserx
    I don't understand why some people resign at the first sign of a loss. The reason most professional players resign after even a pawn advantage is that they can see the result of the game way before a person like me can. They can also better judge how their opponent is playing.

    BUT

    To me continuing to fight in an obviously lost position is just going for a cheap win. Although a win is a win.
    well said, i think that covers it plus the blunder and/or stalemate scenario.
  6. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    03 Jun '08 17:56
    Originally posted by eldragonfly
    someone who feels it necessary to use a chess database or openings book to make their moves here. 😛
    That is such bass-ackwards thinking. The 'average' players are those who like to pretend that there is no chess theory.
  7. Standard membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16870
    03 Jun '08 20:281 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    That is such bass-ackwards thinking. The 'average' players are those who like to pretend that there is no chess theory.
    explain yourself and your ridiculous comment.
  8. Standard memberKorch
    Chess Warrior
    Riga
    Joined
    05 Jan '05
    Moves
    24932
    03 Jun '08 21:472 edits
    Originally posted by eldragonfly
    someone who feels it necessary to use a chess database or openings book to make their moves here. 😛
    As your chess knowledge is very poor most of these players will be able to beat you without using books/databases.

    P.S. I remember there were one similar `expert` - User 318460 who claimed that "opening does not matter" and have been accused in cheating everyone who have beaten him with his opening crap. 😀
  9. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    04 Jun '08 01:23
    Originally posted by eldragonfly
    explain yourself and your ridiculous comment.
    Only if you first explain how you got your over-inflated vocabulary in spite of your incredible stupidity.
  10. Standard membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16870
    04 Jun '08 17:39
    Yes. 🙁
  11. Joined
    01 Mar '08
    Moves
    13928
    06 Jun '08 12:45
    Well, whenever you're playing against those such as myself who a) do not give all moves the attention they deserve and b) move after getting back from the bar, I'd say that it's well worth your time to keep playing.
  12. Joined
    28 Apr '08
    Moves
    77310
    06 Jun '08 22:03
    I feel anyone that resigns in the middle game part of a match is just shameful. Resignations, in my opinion, are intended to end a game with an obvious definite outcome. I'll never resign unless were in an endgame and I'm down to two or less major pieces (regardless of what they are, even two knights against a queen.) If I'm down by a lot in the middle of a game, I might however try a sacrifce or play really agressive.

    Besides, if you're trying to improve your game then what better practice is there than to fight from behind.
  13. Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    24396
    07 Jun '08 01:39
    Originally posted by hany3
    I feel anyone that resigns in the middle game part of a match is just shameful. Resignations, in my opinion, are intended to end a game with an obvious definite outcome. I'll never resign unless were in an endgame and I'm down to two or less major pieces (regardless of what they are, even two knights against a queen.) If I'm down by a lot in the middle of a ...[text shortened]... re trying to improve your game then what better practice is there than to fight from behind.
    Well put...I like it. 🙂
  14. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    07 Jun '08 02:193 edits
    Originally posted by hany3
    I feel anyone that resigns in the middle game part of a match is just shameful. Resignations, in my opinion, are intended to end a game with an obvious definite outcome. I'll never resign unless were in an endgame and I'm down to two or less major pieces (regardless of what they are, even two knights against a queen.) If I'm down by a lot in the middle of a ...[text shortened]... re trying to improve your game then what better practice is there than to fight from behind.`
    I feel anyone that resigns in the middle game part of a match is just shameful.

    I couldn't disagree more. What about a forced checkmate in the middlegame? That warrants resignation. Some games are not destined to reach the endgame at all.

    Game 4994192 Is it really shameful for Black to resign here? How would you 'fight on' from this position? What would you hope to learn, other than the frustration of being ground down in a lost position?

    And in Game 4593476, which I lost...Black is 'only' a pawn down, but just look at the position. White's Rooks have a death grip on the d-file, and Black's Queenside pieces have trouble even getting developed. Rather than go on trying to save the unsaveable [against an opponent who is clearly stronger than his 1700 provisional rating], I decided to concede the point. Again, what is to be learned by playing on here? The odds of White letting me off the hook were slim to none.
  15. Joined
    17 Mar '08
    Moves
    1568
    07 Jun '08 12:12
    Originally posted by hany3
    I feel anyone that resigns in the middle game part of a match is just shameful.
    Here is an OTB game where i resigned because my queen was lost...But it was not in the middlegame so i guess it's ok? 😛

    I have black : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4?! 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Be2 Nf6 7.00 00?? (Bxc3) 8.Nf5 1-0

    My shortest competiton game!
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree