Why Don't They Resign?

Great chessmasters of the past including former world champions have also decided not to resign in entirely hopeless positions. No poor attitudes should be attributed to any player who continues to play such games within the rules, nor should a winning opponent show poor attitude regardless of their supposed reasons for doing so.It is a personal decision to continue with such games and rude or defamatory remarks are unjustifiable and unecessary, as there are a multitude of possible reasons why players in a clearly losing position may make a decision not to resign.It is perhaps the players who complain about non-resignation in such games who should consider the possibility of modifying their own attitude to such game play?----------Alr

I think the trouble with this rule would not be in tournaments or online play but in chess leagues which happen at night and people are usually keen not to finish their games early. Especially so for the leagues which still have the antiquated practise of adjournments - where the games would then go on for ages and ages if a player was forced to continue playing forever. It would get to a point where people would simply stop moving and let their time run out as a form of resignation.

Still, having said that, there are different levels of resignable position - being a pawn down, or even a minor piece, is often not cause enough for an instant resignation as it can be possible to come back e.g.
Game 5007028
Game 4450294

However, there are also positions where somebody is about 4 pieces down, with their opponent able to toy with them as a cat would do with a half dead mouse, and have no possible chance of a win without a series of horrendous blunders then it might well be worth considering a resignation.

Still, having said that, a slow moving opponent should always be pushed right to the bitter end as he is constantly risking a timeout. Also if you get absolutely hammered by somebody right from the very start of the game, those games can be worth stalling as there could be a chance you are up against an engine user who will eventually be banned.

If your opponent has mating material, no matter how down in material then he should not resign. If your opponent has no counterplay and is going to get run over then I consider that unsportsmanlike conduct. Except from players under 1400. Some of them just don't know what a lost game is yet.

Yes, I think there is a level at which I dont care much if my opponent plays on as I know I am going to inevitably win - and I quite enjoy playing out won positions, much more then playing hard middlegames where there is no advantage for either side until the very last minute.

I've had some interesting experiences regarding resigning.

Here is the first: I was playing in a small medium-sized tourney, (about 80 players) a couple of months ago. It was a scholastic tournament, which means it is for players 18 and under. At this level, many players continue until the bitter end, primarily because their coaches and parents tell them there is always a chance their opponent will blunder.

Anyway, The idea was that the tournament was supposed to be finished by 4:00pm. If the final game last longer, it would be adjourned and finished two hours later. I had plans for the evening, so I was hoping to finish in one day.

Unfortunatly, my last game was quite difficult, and after 40 moves the game was adjourned. However, I had secured myself a 3-point advantage, and I was sure I could easily finish the game in 30 moves. I had talked to my opponent in the morning, before the start of the tournament, and told him about my plans. (I did not think we would play each other.)

However, I cancelled my plans, waited the two hours, and came back to the board. The TD anounced the sealed move, which was:
***drumroll*** 42...resigns.

I didn't like my opponent much after that.


My other experience was when I led my opponent to a mate in two, with 45 minutes left on both of our clocks. My opponent, instead of moveing, or resigning, sat their for 45 minutes and let his clock run out.

Chess players are really quite childish.

I have also seen a game in the novice section, (for unrated players, or those who have never played before,) where a game was played of for fifty moves when both players had only bare kings remaining. Neither of them knew it was a draw.

Originally posted by clandarkfire
I've had some interesting experiences regarding resigning.

Here is the first: I was playing in a small medium-sized tourney, (about 80 players) a couple of months ago. It was a scholastic tournament, which means it is for players 18 and under. At this level, many players continue until the bitter end, primarily because their coaches and parents tell ...[text shortened]... fty moves when both players had only bare kings remaining. Neither of them knew it was a draw.

I tend to resign my lost games, although perhaps a few moves too late. Sometimes, I do play a 'lost game' in the hope of a blunder. In fact, I was about to resign one of present games but decided 'the next move is crucial. If the oponent plays to correct winning move, I will resign.' In fact, the oponent played a LOSING move!!

I think some players do not resign in the hope that the winner's rating goes up a bit, thus the losing player will lose less rating points. It is silly logic.

I recently played a game against an opponent rated mid 1800s and got to this position (I was black):



I was analyzing the game and I saw 34. Bxe6! and just seeing that made me want to resign. But, I held my breath and crossed my fingers and celebrated when my opponent played 34. Rf2 instead. I simply played 34. ... Re8 and the game drew shortly thereafter. You never know when even a good opponent is going to miss a move.

That said, if the game is clearly and irretrievably lost, I'd say it's good sportsmanship to resign.

Originally posted by znsho
I tend to resign my lost games, although perhaps a few moves too late. Sometimes, I do play a 'lost game' in the hope of a blunder. In fact, I was about to resign one of present games but decided 'the next move is crucial. If the oponent plays to correct winning move, I will resign.' In fact, the oponent played a LOSING move!!

I think some players do not re ...[text shortened]... ting goes up a bit, thus the losing player will lose less rating points. It is silly logic.

I've resigned in blitz after realizing to have dropped my queen, and at the moment when I'm pressing 'resign' the opponent's move is updated on the board: he didn't grab it.

OTB it´s often reasonable to play on to the time control, if there is one, and in blitz there´s no point in resigning.

This is correspondence chess, if checkmate is inevitable then there is no reason not to let them checkmate you as long as you play out the moves quickly (especially since the conditional moves feature has been added you can probably get it over with in 5 minutes).

Assuming that there isn´t counterplay or at least the possibility of some traps then more experienced players will be thinking that it´s time to resign. Beginners are justified in not resigning against stronger players to see how to win these positions, unless it´s completely obvious. Odd cases like K + N + B vs K you are entitled to see if your opponents technique is up to it.

What annoys people is when players stop playing altogether and just make moves to avoid being timed out, hoping their opponent dies of boredom. Playing on in hopeless positions, but making moves promptly is fine.

Originally posted by amolv06
I wouldn't resign against anyone except a computer against a bishop and knight. I've heard that even grandmasters mess that one up.

This isn't a very difficult endgame at all to win...once you learn how. I've mated with K+B+N vs K in Blitz games. Theres a pretty good video on how to do it on www.chessvideos.tv

Of course anyone has the right to stall a lost game, however, it would seem that if one really wants to improve their game they should spend their time and efforts on games that can be won or drawn without a major blunder by their opponent.

I've had two OTB opponents resign against me in won positions,

One postal player resigned against me in a won position.

One player here resigned against me in a position I think is either
a draw or a loss for me. I've never yet got around to looking at fully
but it is certainly not resignable.

Brilliancies & Blunders has a whole section devoted to players
resigning in won positions (one of the games I spoke about is in there).

So before resigning make sure you have exhausted all possibilities.

It need not be a painful experience. How boring would be chess be
if you won every game?

Also you can still have some fun.

Chandler - Burgess, Edinburgh 1992

Not the 100% exact position but very close.



All hope is gone - the guy is a good player. Time to lower the flag.

1.Qxh7+ Kxh7 2.Rh3+ Kg8 3.Rh2 Qe1 mate.

The last time I played IM Mark Condie I had beaten him a month
ot two previous with a swindle. I knew I was going to get it iin the neck.

So I prepared something.
As expected he played me off the board.
I stood up, took off my jersey to reveal a tee-shirt with I Resign printed on it.

Of course sometimes a loss stings. I hate losing league games.
I've let down my team mates.
But you must grin, shrug shoulders and shake hands.

(then go home and throw all you chess books out of the window).

I think that if you knowingly play someone much lower in rating than you, what comes around goes around. Your average challenge is in the 1000-1100 range. If your provisional rating was lower when you took on the game and you're actually higher than that's a bit dishonest as well. Maybe the person was just holding back because of that. If you are worried about not being able to start another game, a relatively low price would give you a subscription and unlimited games.

No chance? I've seen (and made) reversing blunders in lost games.

It depends on how truly lost the position is. As long as the losing opponent keeps moving I just see it as further practice time. Not unsportsmanlike to keep on playing. After all, it is within the rules to play until one side checkmates the other. If a player seeks a stalemate, then so be it. Gotta keep it going. Personally I prefer to checkmate.