Originally posted by Fat Lady If you want to play on it's up to you. What does me is when my opponent slows down to a snail's pace once the position is hopeless.
I'll typically resign when I feel a position is lost (heck, I've resigned just for being pissed at my own play!), although I have on occasion asked an opponent to finish me off just to see how they execute the endgame. On those odd occasions when I am actually in the winningposition, the above quote reflects my sentiments exactly.
Expecting your opponent to resign because you have a technically won position is ridiculous. Whether your advantage is overwhelming or slight you should be forced to play it through to it's conclusion as winning such games still requires skill. You can take pleasure in finishing the game as efficiently as you can and trying to prevent your opponent from drawing.
Etiquette? You're going to whisper about me behind my back?
Oh lord no.
Originally posted by wormwood I don't go down easily. I resign late, and only when it's absolutely sure the opponent can't possibly screw it up. I also play etremely slow when I'm losing, because I triple my efforts to find the best possible defense. I will look for every possible resource, try to complicate things, stir up trouble. -there's always a great urge to resign a game w aying for a draw. and I think these are the kind of games that have taught me the most.
wormwood, I congratulate you for that endgame play, but as far as I could see in a glance -which may be wrong-, that game was only positionally unbalanced in favor of white. it wasn't a totally lost game. and I'm sure (or at least I hope) you would resign if that a pawn had managed to promote to queen somehow.
and to others who all would rather die instead of resigning with the argument that it's legal according to the rules, what's wrong with you people? just being allowed in the rules doesn't make something nice and healthy!
Originally posted by diskamyl wormwood, I congratulate you for that endgame play, but as far as I could see in a glance -which may be wrong-, that game was only positionally unbalanced in favor of white. it wasn't a totally lost game. and I'm sure (or at least hope) you would resign if that a pawn had managed to promote to queen somehow.
I think I was more that +5 pawns down at worst, and around +3 most of the game.
I would've resigned after queening of course, but I made a decision pretty early to sac a piece for a pawn on queenside. almost directly in the opening. -I knew there was no way to stop all those pawns otherwise.
I dont resign unless my opponent is playing very well and I don't see any counterplay. Even if I have lost material I will still fight on in the hopes of a blunder, and sometimes it happens, other times my opponents buckle down and I get my clock cleaned... this is when I resign.
Originally posted by wormwood I think I was more that +5 pawns down at worst, and around +3 most of the game.
I would've resigned after queening of course, but I made a decision pretty early to sac a piece for a pawn on queenside. almost directly in the opening. -I knew there was no way to stop all those pawns otherwise.
no you wern't down 5 pawns ever in the game (I know you didn't mean that literally, I'm not doing that either). imagine a starting position where you have the a,b,c,d and e pawns lost. that would be minus 5 pawns. in your game, white had a nice kingside attack and a lot kingside space, and after your sac, had a rook for your bishop and a nice open file, but still had to prove the win. what I'm trying to say is that even if the position is winning for white, it's very unbalanced, and in unbalanced games to prove the advantage is very challenging (which by the way was the idea behind your sac, I think).
Originally posted by diskamyl no you wern't down 5 pawns ever in the game (I know you didn't mean that literally, I'm not doing that either). imagine a starting position where you have the a,b,c,d and e pawns lost. that would be minus 5 pawns. in your game, white had a nice kingside attack and a lot kingside space, and after your sac, had a rook for your bishop and a nice open file, but the advantage is very challenging (which by the way was the idea behind your sac, I think).
chessicle - wormwood
4n3/3R4/p5pk/2pN3p/1P1bp3/4K1PP/PP3P2/8 w - - 0 1
and I stress, this Bd4+ was no blunder made in hurry, but the only way to get to the pawns. I took maybe a week on the move I think.
the previous position you were talking about, after the exchange sac, I missed that I couldn't take his bishop after 19.Bxd5+. which left me with nothing. I thought I had the center pawns to work with, which would've given me some chances, but Bd5+ took that away and it was totally lost from there.
and I stress, this Bd4+ was no blunder made in hurry, but the only way to get to the pawns. I took maybe a week on the move I think.
the previous ...[text shortened]... ch would've given me some chances, but Bd5+ took that away and it was totally lost from there.
it's possible both you and I may be right here. I'm not opposing against your evaluation, just trying to say that not resigning here is rational since the advantages are yet to be proved, because again, it's not the same positions with a whole rook missing in one side, it's an unbalanced position, highly in favor of white.
Originally posted by diskamyl it's possible both you and I may be right here. I'm not opposing against your evaluation, just trying to say that not resigning here is rational since the advantages are yet to be proved, because again, it's not the same positions with a whole rook missing in one side, it's an unbalanced position, highly in favor of white.
it's +6.15 now. if that's not a 'rationally resignable position' I don't know what is. 😵
I thought it was rationally resignable after 19.Bxd5+ (+2 pawns), down material with no real counterplay. but I chose to take the hard way down. it cost me +4 pawns to create the counterplay, which is no rational deal.
Originally posted by diskamyl if you'd be playing against fritz, it would be rational to resign. not against a player 200 points below you.
6 pawns down is rational to resign, no matter how you cut it. I just don't give up that easily. and about the rating difference, we were not that far apart when the game started, and chessicle had me in the ropes in both games we played. I was a piece down in the other one, but I had a lot of counterplay. he's no slouch (oh, and just to clarify things, the last moves in the game, after draw is blatantly obvious, we were just chatting about the game). he didn't even blunder really, unlike me, he just didn't win because I refused to go down without a fight. and that's the point I'm trying to make here.
but I agree about fritz though. fritz can defend a lot of positions that are simply impossible to defend for a human (excluding maybe top GMs). and it won't give back an advantage it has reached, it'll just grind you down with it.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy It's every player's choice when or if to resign. Of course if you're the one winning you also have a choice. If I have someone totally dominated and they refuse to resign I don't send them messages or get upset. But sometimes I will refuse to win until I've taken every piece and pawn they have, and queened all my pawns.
I take the same approach. If the opponent does not respect your ability (the ability that has put him in a position of loss to begin with) enough to resign, then show no respect back. Take every piece and promote every pawn! But be wary of the stalemate.. with 5 or 6 queens on the board its actually tuff not to do!
Resigning a hopeless position is just good manners, dragging it out is poor sportsmanship , unless your opponent is very weak and stupid, which is a roundabout way of telling him so and insulting him if you play on.
Among GOOD players, almost no games end in checkmate, indeed, in a tournament, if you get checkmated, you are required to wear your underwear over your head in the next round with a sign on your back saying "I'm a big dumba$$ and got mated last game, KICK ME".
I never resign
22 May '07 13:58
Back to Top