13 Aug 08
When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?
Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.
On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.
What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by sporadicThe stronger the players are the closer to the middle game they would resign because they could recognize a losing position quite early. So if you are a couple of pawns up and there are only two knights on the board, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that 99 times out of 100 one of the pawns busts through and becomes a queen, even if its 8 or so moves away. So faced with that situation, the losing side capitulates gracefully and does not force the other side to 'prove it' that the game is lost. It is more a matter of respect to quit when you see that kind of thing, because if you go on you are saying to the other guy, I don't think much of your endgame ability so I am going to make you prove it. If you just resign, you are saying, I respect your ability to win in this situation, you know you can win here, I know you can win here, lets save some time and go to the next game.
When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?
Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.
On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.
What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by sporadicI usually resign very early but if my opponent has some beautiful combination resulting in checkmate I didn't see on time, I would let him finish me that way.
When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?
Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.
On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.
What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by sporadicIf you are only a few moves from a forced mate, resign.
When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?
Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.
On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.
What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
No sense prolonging the stuation. If you are a few moves
from mating your opponent, who care if they resign! It's
a win either way.
bill718 🙂
13 Aug 08
If my opponent opens with:
1) e4 I resign. This would have been a wild wide open game with a quick attack and checkmate for him.
2) d4 I resign. In closed positional play I get slowly crushed.
3) c4/N-f3 I resign. Don't know nothing about English/hypermodern. I'll lose.
4) a3/h3 I resign. What the hell is that?? Must be a secret weapon. I quit!
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by sporadicresigning is an option for the losing player, not an obligation. the opponent has no say in it. you, and you alone, decide when you resign.
When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?
Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.
On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.
What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
asking someone to resign will most likely make him drag the rest of the game for as long as possible. which could be years in CC.
that said, most experienced players will resign when the position is dead lost AND the last counterplay is exhausted. in practice it's the point where the mate becomes inevitable.
but naturally you don't resign complicated forced mates etc. if you have the tiniest doubt that your opponent doesn't know how to do it. great examples are the KNB and Q vs R forced mates. you play on until you're sure.
at no point does 'etiquette' play a part. chess has rules, it doesn't need an etiquette.
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by sporadicAlways avoid a mate by resigning. If you get mated, it means you didn't see it coming.
When you are losing and you are one or two moves away from mate, should you just resign or give your opponent the satisfaction of completing their little master plan?
Sometimes when i'm being outplayed I'm so gutted I would rather resign than suffer a check mate.
On the other hand, when i'm winning I would like to see the completion of the game and am ...[text shortened]... a bit peeved when my opponent resigns.
What do you think? Is their an etiquette for this?
I have only been mated at RHP 2 or 3 times. 2 of them were after being here a year or 2 and I just didn't see them. Happened in a span of about 2 weeks.
P-
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by MontyMoose>The shortest ever GM game was Fischer-Panno, Palma de Mallorca 1970.
If my opponent opens with:
1) e4 I resign. This would have been a wild wide open game with a quick attack and checkmate for him.
2) d4 I resign. In closed positional play I get slowly crushed.
3) c4/N-f3 I resign. Don't know nothing about English/hypermodern. I'll lose.
4) a3/h3 I resign. What the hell is that?? Must be a secret weapon. I quit!
>The complete game was: 1.c4 Resigns.
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornHaha, I read that that was a staged protest though.
>The shortest ever GM game was Fischer-Panno, Palma de Mallorca 1970.
>The complete game was: 1.c4 Resigns.
Anyway, I tend never to resign even in a losing position.I always play for a draw via stalemate or perpetual check. I mean, if I was playing someone at or above the IM level I might consider it so as not to potentially insult their intelligence; however it's always possible that your opponent makes a mistake. Always.
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by AttilaTheHornNo it's not. Shortest ever GM game is Kramnik - Topalov, 5th game, world championship 2006, in which Topalov introduced the infamous Topalov-Danailov gambit. The game ended in 0-1 after 0 moves.
>The shortest ever GM game was Fischer-Panno, Palma de Mallorca 1970.
>The complete game was: 1.c4 Resigns.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1431008
13 Aug 08
Originally posted by schakuhr>There are many examples forfeits in which no moves have been played. The 2nd game in the 1972 World Championship was perhaps the most famous, when Fischer refused to appear against Spassky.
No it's not. Shortest ever GM game is Kramnik - Topalov, 5th game, world championship 2006, in which Topalov introduced the infamous Topalov-Danailov gambit. The game ended in 0-1 after 0 moves.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1431008
>However, my above example of Fischer-Panno was actuially played.