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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 😛
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.
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.
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. 😀
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.
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.
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.
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.