After this two games, I'll never resign again 😉
Game 4111348 (I believe I can draw)
Game 4149512 (gonna win!)
both in progress, dont comment
Originally posted by monteirofWhat can I say? Nothing! (they are in progress).
After this two games, I'll never resign again 😉
Game 4111348 (I believe I can draw)
Game 4149512 (gonna win!)
both in progress, dont comment
Just perhaps that whether to play on depends on the strength of your opponent. If you have a "lost" game and you know that your opponent knows how to win it resign but if you can generate counterplay or are not sure your opponent knows how to win play on.
By all means if your opponents time bank is low and you think you can win on time then play on, time after all is part of the game.
Originally posted by stevetoddI'm not advocating playing on under all conditions. But I think that there is something that can be learned by hunkering down in a bad position and coming up with the move that, as your opponent, you would least like to see. Then doing the same thing the next move. And the next. And the next.
I would rather resign, there's nothing I can learn from hanging on for a blunder. I am here to learn and enjoy, not hang on for some meaningless rating points that probably will not be coming my way in any case. Otb is differnt, especially if I have a time advantage, or we are both short f time.
That something is mental toughness and is quite valuable in chess. If you can manage, in a bad position, to keep playing well long enough, your opponent -- especially in an amateur game -- may well make an error that revives your game.
To say that playing for an error is "cheap" overlooks the fact that in chess the only way to EVER get any advantage is for your opponent to err. So, playing and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake is the norm, not an exception. If both sides play perfectly, a draw will occur.
The only question is, how big of a mistake must your opponent make, and how likely is it that a player with the knowledge/skills thus far demonstrated by him will make such a mistake? That really depends on the specific circumstances.
Another point is that early resignation denies one the chance to learn endgame situations.
A third point is that amateur players may not always be the best judges of what constitutes a lost position, whether due to lack of tactical skills, strategic vision, or endgame knowledge. By assuming the worst rather than looking hard for a reasonable continuation, one may not only be denying one's self the chance for a draw (or even a win), but also the opportunity to develop these skills further.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsJust plain insulting is someone playing on in the hopes of getting a stalemate. Recently I intended getting five Queens just to rub it in, but then changed my mind. It was getting just too irritating.
I'm not advocating playing on under all conditions. But I think that there is something that can be learned by hunkering down in a bad position and coming up with the move that, as your opponent, you would least like to see. Then doing the same thing the next move. And the next. And the next.
That something is mental toughness and is quite valuabl ...[text shortened]... chance for a draw (or even a win), but also the opportunity to develop these skills further.
Originally posted by buffalobillMany years ago I was playing a slow tournament game against an Expert (I was [and am] a Class A player). All I had left was a King and a Queen. My opponent had two Queens, a bishop and a bunch of pawns. My King was stalemated, and my opponent couldn't stop me from placing my Queen right next to his King. Even though my Queen was en prise, he couldn't take it because of the stalemate. As a result, I got a draw.
Just plain insulting is someone playing on in the hopes of getting a stalemate. Recently I intended getting five Queens just to rub it in, but then changed my mind. It was getting just too irritating.
Was I wrong to play out that dead-lost position?
Originally posted by pimpsandwichLet's be fair now. vietasianfox45 didn't ever accept the draw, accidentally nor otherwise.
Some people prefer to play on even after they accidentally accept a draw.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=83672
Read the thread a little bit further...
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThere is a video on chessvideos.tv of a NM - by said NM - who sacs his Q right in the opening for some crazy initiative and attacking chances. It leads to a pretty hairy game with surprising winning chances, but after some accurate defence from his opp, the NM is, in his own words, just dead in the water. At that point he decided to play it out a little longer anyway and pulled off a stalemate.
Many years ago I was playing a slow tournament game against an Expert (I was [and am] a Class A player). All I had left was a King and a Queen. My opponent had two Queens, a bishop and a bunch of pawns. My King was stalemated, and my opponent couldn't stop me from placing my Queen right next to his King. Even though my Queen was en prise, he could ...[text shortened]... the stalemate. As a result, I got a draw.
Was I wrong to play out that dead-lost position?
If stalemate is good enough reason for an NM to play on, I say its enough reason for anyone else. Especially in blitz, or even OTB. In CC I doubt I have the patience to play out such a game, but I don't begrudge my opp trying to.
