Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

why dont people resign

Standard memberajsaxin
Only Chess 11 Dec '11 14:35
  1. a
    Standard memberajsaxin
    Joined
    12 Nov '11
    Moves
    755
    12 Dec '11 06:40
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi ajsaxin

    There is nothing in the rules of chess saying you must resign.
    Perhps pick your opponents more carefully (look at their games and
    you can see the stragglers.)

    Also look how many times they have scored a stalemate.
    If they have turned just one loss into a drawn game they will try and try again.

    Play to a quicker time control.

    P ...[text shortened]... and White checkmated Black 20 moves later.
    Anything can happen...You cannot win by resigning.
    Frankly that game was close to call and the fact that I wrested the advantage in a few moves with out any obvious blunder from the other person does show I was right and no one is asking any one to resign when they are a piece down in the middle game .Let me re iterate ,what bugs me are those instances when people just stop making there moves as they used to when they know the game is lost.If you are no interested in trying then resign And as I mentioned in my first post I am talking about games that are almost lost.

    Such as -8875597 8882212 ....
  2. t
    Standard membertomtom232
    Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    12 Dec '11 06:461 edit
    Originally posted by ajsaxin
    Frankly that game was close to call and the fact that I wrested the advantage in a few moves with out any obvious blunder from the other person does show I was right and no one is asking any one to resign when they are a piece down in the middle game .Let me re iterate ,what bugs me are those instances when people just stop making there moves as they used t ...[text shortened]... in my first post I am talking about games that are almost lost.

    Such as -8875597 8882212 ....
    too close to call??? I could have won that game blindfolded against a GM if I were black. No obvious blunders??? Your opponent played passively the whole way and then fell for a simple knight fork.

    18...Qh4 19.Rf3 Bxf3 20.Qxf3 g5 21.Nh5 f5 and white is crushed... instead black campained on the other side of the board where he had no advantage.
  3. a
    Standard memberajsaxin
    Joined
    12 Nov '11
    Moves
    755
    12 Dec '11 07:03
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    too close to call??? I could have won that game blindfolded against a GM if I were black. No obvious blunders??? Your opponent played passively the whole way and then fell for a simple knight fork.
    Lets hope that was just a figure of speech.If a GM lost the game at that stage to you even if he/she was playing blind folded high time they found something better to do with their lives.I definitely do not see any of that so called brilliance you claim in you games.Example http://www.timeforchess.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=5568817

    so lets not get carried away.And if you still insist you could beat me blindfolded then you welcome to challenge me for a game and play it with both eyes open.

    Just fyi.In chess you play your opponent not just the pieces at hand.I lost my piece in that game because of a blunder not some fabulous play from the opponent and I always knew if that was their game I could wrest the initiative back.
  4. a
    Standard memberajsaxin
    Joined
    12 Nov '11
    Moves
    755
    12 Dec '11 07:10
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    too close to call??? I could have won that game blindfolded against a GM if I were black. No obvious blunders??? Your opponent played passively the whole way and then fell for a simple knight fork.

    18...Qh4 19.Rf3 Bxf3 20.Qxf3 g5 21.Nh5 f5 and white is crushed... instead black campained on the other side of the board where he had no advantage.
    And why would I ever play RF3 ??? seriously?????????
  5. P
    Standard memberPhySiQ
    The Ghost Bishop
    Joined
    11 Oct '11
    Moves
    877
    12 Dec '11 08:17
    Originally posted by ajsaxin
    Lets hope that was just a figure of speech.If a GM lost the game at that stage to you even if he/she was playing blind folded high time they found something better to do with their lives.I definitely do not see any of that so called brilliance you claim in you games.Example http://www.timeforchess.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=5568817

    so lets n ...[text shortened]... ay from the opponent and I always knew if that was their game I could wrest the initiative back.
    Master ajsaxin I'd like to share with you a piece of wisdom a much sharper man once shared with me. He was also a very strong player too.
    "When your emotions run your mouth, and mind - you have given your opponent pawns odds before the clock is struck"
    Early on I had much trouble with this. It took a long time for me to get past it (and get the pawn back as I like to say!). So do be careful, graciousness is a weapon itself!

    Your question "why would I play Rf3" is fair. So lets look at the why.
    Invert BoardPGNHeadersComments

    This explains why Mr. TomTom showed us Qh4 - and why white must play Rf3. A very demanding attack indeed! However when I look at the weaknesses on g2 and h3 I find a very different approach. I don't like removing pins that need not be removed. I like breaking a solid pawn structure of my own even less. This is my personal proposal:
    Invert BoardPGNHeadersComments


    Best of luck to you both!

    Q
  6. a
    Standard memberajsaxin
    Joined
    12 Nov '11
    Moves
    755
    12 Dec '11 13:20
    Originally posted by PhySiQ
    Master ajsaxin I'd like to share with you a piece of wisdom a much sharper man once shared with me. He was also a very strong player too.
    [b]"When your emotions run your mouth, and mind - you have given your opponent pawns odds before the clock is struck"
    Early on I had much trouble with this. It took a long time for me to get past it (and get the p ...[text shortened]... t. Bxf3 is a devastating material deficit.}*[/pgn]

    Best of luck to you both!

    Q[/b]
    tks physiq...don’t think this is ur name but still tks...most ppl say i am short tempered but i would call it passionate..
    now abt the game..ill play qd2 after nf5 followed by I assume ull play knight g3 and ill move the rook to e1.and then my knight to g2 or d3..…
  7. Subscribergreenpawn34
    e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    12 Dec '11 14:13
    Hi ajsaxin

    I don't think you will get many agreeing that this position...


    ...was too close to call. Black is a safe piece up it needs (as happened)
    a few bad moves from him for White to spin this.

    But as it turned out you were right in playing on.
    The lad appears to have thought the game now just wins itself with
    legal moves and walked into a Knight fork losing his Rook.

    If some players would rather let their time run out, possibly hoping you
    will take a risk and blunder trying to wrap up the game quicker.
    Then it is up to them.

    A few of you are looking at this position.


    Black is a piece up. What is the golden rule when you are a bit up?
    Always look to sac it back. Nobody has looked at the Queen sacrifice.

    Invert BoardPGNHeadersComments
  8. Standard membermoon1969
    Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    12 Dec '11 14:301 edit
    Originally posted by ajsaxin
    Not to sound arrogant but why dent people resign when they know the game is as good as lost.
    Amongst the few tht I have played I ve noticed the players with high ratings do resign when they know the advantage clearly lies with their opponent ,forget about a piece lead .But it’s the 1300 and below who continue to play on ,rather than resign and go in for a ...[text shortened]... er I don’t get to play more games until i am done with my current games.

    Sorry about the rant
    While it is well within the rules and apparently ok ettiquette for player to not resign and to continue to play in a clearly lost game, I agree with you, especially with higher rated players where a stalemate is highly unlikely. Generally, there is not much to learn in a plainly lost game, and time would be better spent and more enjoyable playing another game, or studying chess, or spending time with my kids.

    I suggest paying for a subscription if you can afford it. In my case, I just put my clearly won games on the back burner, and make conditional moves in an effort to speed the games along, and not worry about them, and get zero satisfaction from the ultimate mate. To me the game was over well before the mate, and I get no satisfaction from chasing a bare K across the board, for example.

    Sure, learning how to avoid clear and basic stalemates, or how to mate with a K and Q against a solo K is good for the beginner, but with experienced players, seems like a grande waste of time and is not enjoyable, and really has nothing to do with learning chess strategy or tactics.
  9. Subscribergreenpawn34
    e4
    Joined
    06 May '08
    Moves
    42492
    12 Dec '11 14:54
    Hi Moon

    Higher rated players rarely play on to the mate. Sometimes if they have
    two games on the go v an opponent, winning in one and losing badly in the
    other they might drag out the lose with a I'll resign my lose if you resign
    yours kind of deal.

    A lot of the lads 1400 and under think it is rude to resign.
    Playing on is actually a sign of respect, a compliment.

    No moving at all and being skulled.... It takes all kinds to make a world.
    I recently played a lad who has over 800 timeouts against him and 400+
    skulls taken User 292438.
    It can be for any reason. Too many games, broken kit, work, (the worse scenario
    being something has happened to the lad.)
    It's no use complaining about it.
  10. Standard membermoon1969
    Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    12 Dec '11 15:153 edits
    If you were white, would you resign in this position against an experienced player? White to move. This a position from one of my RHP games where white did not resign, and as black, I pushed the f-pawn across the board to f8/Q, and then chased his K across the board for the boring mate (game was 72 moves). Did white benefit from the late play? His RHP rating is 1486. What did he learn. Was it time well-spent for him?




    Below is the entire game. If you were white, would you have resigned and if so, which move? Note, white did offer me a draw on move 55.

    The Ruy Lopez exchange variation. I did not necessarily play well in the game, he may have could have won or at least force the draw? I did not analyze the game. Anyway, he (white) blundered letting me get his rook pawn (a-pawn) on about move 30. The power of an extra pawn (a passed one at that). At some point, the game was clearly lost for him well before the mate?


    Game 7871905

    Invert BoardPGN
  11. Standard membermoon1969
    Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    12 Dec '11 15:192 edits
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Moon

    Higher rated players rarely play on to the mate. Sometimes if they have
    two games on the go v an opponent, winning in one and losing badly in the
    other they might drag out the lose with a I'll resign my lose if you resign
    yours kind of deal.

    A lot of the lads 1400 and under think it is rude to resign.
    Playing on is actually a sign of respect, a compliment.
    True. Good points. And I guess I really do not mind playing on against less-experienced players. They have been gracious about it at times. As for me, I tend to try to play stronger players, and I do draw and lose a lot of games. And I tend to resign early (probably too early) unless the game is interesting for some reason.

    I would think it may be prudent to play-on at any level when there is a decent possibility to recover. Unless where time or rest may be an issue.
  12. a
    Standard memberajsaxin
    Joined
    12 Nov '11
    Moves
    755
    12 Dec '11 15:36
    Originally posted by greenpawn34
    Hi Moon

    Higher rated players rarely play on to the mate. Sometimes if they have
    two games on the go v an opponent, winning in one and losing badly in the
    other they might drag out the lose with a I'll resign my lose if you resign
    yours kind of deal.

    A lot of the lads 1400 and under think it is rude to resign.
    Playing on is actually a sign of re ...[text shortened]... worse scenario
    being something has happened to the lad.)
    It's no use complaining about it.
    Exactly my point. You don’t play the game just based on the board. You observe how well your opponent is. If possible have a look at their rating and their previous record and then decide your chances. If I resign it would only be because I rather save my self the time than go through something where the end result is obvious.
    I still wouldn’t mind if someone does not resign if they at least have the courtesy to make their moves on time …
    I would have felt much better if people came up with those sarcastic comments after having a look at the two examples I am talking about (Not you green pawn).Those are games that are not just a lost cause against good players but even an average player can win it from their. Even if they don’t wanna resign at least go ahead and make your moves simple as that. Is that too much to ask for ?

    Greenpawn…I ve started playing chess again after nearly 9 years. I gave up chess for good since I left high school .So yes after spending a little bit more time in this forum and community I would get myself a member ship ,which is a logical conclusion ..
  13. t
    Standard membertomtom232
    Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    12 Dec '11 16:27
    Originally posted by ajsaxin
    Lets hope that was just a figure of speech.If a GM lost the game at that stage to you even if he/she was playing blind folded high time they found something better to do with their lives.I definitely do not see any of that so called brilliance you claim in you games.Example http://www.timeforchess.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=5568817

    so lets n ...[text shortened]... ay from the opponent and I always knew if that was their game I could wrest the initiative back.
    LOL yeah that was quite brilliantly dumb by me... but I played excellently before my blunder and would have been up a full rook had I just played bxa8(Q) instead of Bxd7+
  14. P
    Standard memberPhySiQ
    The Ghost Bishop
    Joined
    11 Oct '11
    Moves
    877
    12 Dec '11 18:412 edits
    Originally posted by ajsaxin
    tks physiq...don’t think this is ur name but still tks...most ppl say i am short tempered but i would call it passionate..
    now abt the game..ill play qd2 after nf5 followed by I assume ull play knight g3 and ill move the rook to e1.and then my knight to g2 or d3..…
    You are very welcome Master ajsaxin. Now It sounds like we need to take a look at a position. Lets go on and do that! Now I can see that Mr. Greenpawn relishes in offering up sacrifices as much as possible. So lets do that too!

    Invert BoardPGNHeadersComments


    Q
  15. a
    Standard memberajsaxin
    Joined
    12 Nov '11
    Moves
    755
    12 Dec '11 19:231 edit
    Originally posted by PhySiQ
    You are very welcome Master ajsaxin. Now It sounds like we need to take a look at a position. Lets go on and do that! Now I can see that Mr. Greenpawn relishes in offering up sacrifices as much as possible. So lets do that too!

    [pgn][FEN "2kr3r/ppp1npp1/4p3/3p2q1/3PbNP1/1PP1P2P/P4R2/3Q1RK1 b - - 0 18"]
    18. ... Nf5 19. Qd2 Qxg4+ {if white accepts then ...[text shortened]... ueen with the checks on the bottom ranks. Winning with the new passed pawn on g5.*}[/pgn]

    Q
Back to Top
Sign up or Connect to Play Chess

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