chess games

Chess Games

Share and you will reveal!
Strange name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
longbow196 20 ( +1 | -1 )
when to surrender? When it appears the game is lost should the loser withdraw or continue? I am a newbee and I don't want to be a nusance while playing someone that is better than myself. Sincerly Glenn.
honololou 41 ( +1 | -1 )
this subjectů has been much debated in these forums. But, if you want the respect of serious players you must
be willing to resign hopeless positions. Playing on against a better opponent in such situations is
considered bad chess manners and some players will be so insulted that they will choose not to
play you again.

Of course you will find some who disagree and "hopeless" is somewhat subjective.
muppyman 50 ( +1 | -1 )
I suppose, the operative word here is "appears" . Whether or not the game is hopelessly lost depends on such things as experience and perception. If I was giving you advice, it would be this. If you believe your game against a better player is lost, then it makes sense to resign. You need to play lots of games against better players because it is one way to improve your own chess, so its a good idea to treat those players with some respect. Good luck for the future :)
ganstaman 207 ( +1 | -1 )
My method There are always people with different opinions. Some resign once they lose a piece with no compensation. Some won't resign until there is absolutely no hope of a swindle left. I've heard something like "Don't resign until everyone in the room can understand why you're resigning" (of course assuming you're in a large tournament room with players of all skill levels).

How I choose when to resign: when I'm down a significant amount of material AND my position has no merits and I can't find any good moves. Losing material isn't enough to lose a game. As long as there is something about my position that I can use to try to win, I'll keep playing. But if I reach a position where I'm down and I can't find any move that makes any progress, then I resign. I don't want to play on hoping my opponent will make an outright blunder, and I can't find anything to do to try to make him blunder. Even one passed pawn can be reason enough to continue. Usually if I'm down, I'll become ultra-aggressive. I have nothing to lose, and I'm giving the material I have left the best chance of setting up a mate.

I've played blitz games where I blunder my queen away. In one game, I had a lot of pressure against my opponent's kingside (where his king was) with my rooks, and I had a very active knight. My opponent didn't really have his material doing much. I kept on playing and eventually set up a mate (I would have won some material back if he had stopped the mate instead). Another time that I lost my queen I didn't resign because my opponent's king and queen were stuck in the center of the board, and I was easily able to get my pieces aimed at the center. Eventually, I pinned his queen against his king and came back.

Another game I blunder my rook for nothing. I sat for maybe 5 minutes trying to find a move, but nothing looked good. I couldn't see any advantage to exploit, or any type of advantage I could try to create. I resigned that game.

Of course, this may not be perfect, but I feel that it's fairest for everyone involved.
thunker 114 ( +1 | -1 )
My take... I will resign or offer a draw whenever my "gut feeling" tells me to do so. Many have all these rules and idioms to determine when it is "appropriate" to resign. However, the bottom line is that it's a game of chess, and it's completely within your right to continue to play out a "hopeless" position if you should so choose. The real issue is whether one can learn anything from doing so, or is it simply wasting both side's time?

I often hesitate to resign a game because I've had those rare instances where my opponent made just that tiny error that might turn a lost game into a draw.... But, this determination is usually quite subjective.

Of course my philosophy on correspondence chess is not the norm for most players. I usually play only a few games at a time. My teacher has taught me to try and play a few games well rather than many average games. Thus I rarely play more than 3 or 4 games at once, as it takes a lot of my time for me to analyze each board to any degree of detail. Plus my chess game load is secondary to earning a living! :-)
coyotefan 1 ( +1 | -1 )
When lost Resign.
ionadowman 138 ( +1 | -1 )
longbow196... ...I've had a look at your rating and at some of your games. They suggest to me that you haven't been playing chess for long (or much) - a beginner in fact. As such I would suggest that you do not resign any game for the time being. I was about to qualify this by suggesting that if you reached a point where you knew how to win with your opponent's position, then would be an appropriate time to resign, but I'm not sure that that would be very helpful really... But, suppose that you have reached a level at which a K+Q vs K endgame is easy for you. If you knew how to force mate with K+Q vs K, no matter what, then it is reasonable to resign the game if you were the one with the lone K. Otherwise, play on. You will learn something.
I tried coaching some primary schoolkids a few years ago, but do you think I could get them interested in learning how to force the win in a K+R vs K ending? They just wanted to play... The number of draws (stalemates) in endings with K+multiple Qs vs lone K were legion. Given that, the defender was justified in playing on...
So if you want to continue the game, longbow196, and are still enjoying the game, play on. When to resign does depend on skill level, and is a learned thing anyhow. After all, Frank Marshall and Efim Bogolyubov were both known to play on a rook down for naff-all compensation...
ccmcacollister 131 ( +1 | -1 )
A different view ... I'm not one to advocate playing to Mate. But at the same time, you never Win/Draw by resigning. It is really a matter that you become better at as you gain experience, and develop a feel for when you will certainly lose :)
What I'd like to mention for now is when Not to Resign. Never resign before You know it is lost, and you are reletively certain your opponent knows you are lost and how to win it. And for someone needing experience, I would also say not to resign before You know How to win vs your position. So that you can use the technique in the future when you have the winning position.
You can smooth any ruffled feathers from a highly rated opponent if you mention that you know you are probably lost but would benefit from seeing how it is best to proceed. You dont have to do that of course, you are entitled to play to mate, but you are being gracious to them by doing so, if you wish to. (Again you dont Have to).

They may then be willing carry on without getting ruffled, or to explain it to you in any case. If you did go so far as to be that gracious about the matter yourself, and your opponent came back to you with a crass remark or complaints about such a civil
and reasonable request ... then play it out, as you are intitled to and dont feel bad at
all about doing so against a rude opponent regardless of who they are.
That would be my opinion and advice to you.
Regards }8-)
More: Chess
flcrackers 42 ( +1 | -1 )
I myself have no problem resigning personal games when I know I'm getting killed. However, when playing "team games", there are others depending on me to try and turn a lost cause into a possible draw game. Team ELO considerations. I know this may ruffle a few feathers, egos and impatience tend to cloud judgement at times. Any other thoughts about the team factor?
ccmcacollister 327 ( +1 | -1 )
An opinion on team play ... Some people playing team games say they will hang on till the bitter end. Play every game to mate, and use all their time ... extend even completely lost games for the sake of the team, and who knows ... the opponent may have computer failure, heart failure, or just sick of your game failure. But think about that for a moment. What do you really get for your team in that case?
Well the entire time you are extending out a game that you should lose then your rating is inflated somewhat for each such game. If you would happen to WIN those games, then your rating will be terribly inflated, even more. And so in both such cases you will be paired up in all new games to compete at a level that you may not be qualified for. So you take massive losses there, then what have you gained for your team?
During the entire time you are dragging on any lost games too, all your new pairing will be at a higher level than if you had just admitted the losses and gotten paired anew at a lower level of opponent, where you might very well win back the points you yielded before. Actually, at that lower rating, your captain could then try to get you more matches there to make up for what you lost the team and perhaps bring in some added points besides.
So my philosophy does not drag out a game unnecessarily just because it IS a team game. (There might be an exception in a true team vs team match of consequence and of limited number of games, where only a few games were left and they might decide the outcome. Maybe then you would play unto death, if the team needed/wanted. But that is not really the GK situation)
What I would do is to not resign any games that I know are lost and believe my opponent should know how to win; at just that point. But to actually make them carry on a bit to show they do understand the winning technique involved. And are displaying it in the game. This may be referred to as the proving stage of the game. And while asking an opponent to disply some technical ability with a given position may not always sit well with them. It is certainly not unethical, untoward, nor unreasonable. It is not like carrying on while in a position where you are behind three queens and no possiblity of stalemate :) IMO
Still, each player must decide what they feel is the best policy for their own games. Or whether to decide each on a completely individual basis. But at the same time, what are the wishes of your Captain? And your teams philosophy? I would think that a team player might want to keep their own Resignation policy in accord with the team philosophy upon it, or at least to lean towards that. Personally however, I would not compete on a team that had a stall and compete to mate every game type philosophy ... for upper level games anyway. What may be reasonable at one ability level may not be for another level. Hopefully your team would not ask you to engage in a resignation practice that would be completely uncomfortable to you.
Thats just my thought on it. }8-)
ccmcacollister 15 ( +1 | -1 )
PS// I would not think anyone should resign a game where they feel they may have any real drawing chances however.
dysfl 100 ( +1 | -1 )
Your priority In GK chess, I don't feel any value of 'never resign', even for a beginner.

In case of OTB, it is part emotional battle, too. So you can see the opponent's nostrils are expanding by holding tough in a bad postion. His brain might slip into a void just when he is moving his piece after two hours. I understand you should fight till the end in this case.

My priorty in GK games is to enjoy the game in my own pace. If I continue a losing game :

1) I waste my time. Instead of enjoying the games, I am only extending my agony. I don't mind my opponent keeps on playing his lost position. Autoreply checkmate is really sweet.

2) I waste other people's time. I see some people are dragging the whole tournament for months with losing games. No idea why they do that.

A beginner, including me, can learn by not resigning, I heard. However, you should remember that playing as many games as possible is also important. You cannot play that many games if you keep playing lost games.
mormel12 23 ( +1 | -1 )
dysfl playing half a game isn't helpfull to learn something.
That's why a begginer should always play a game out, otherwise you'll only learn to play half a game:)
(endgames are most important in chess:))
ionadowman 130 ( +1 | -1 )
Though... ...I'd tend to go with mormel12 on this, I realise dysfl has a strong point, one that ccmcacollister also touched upon. But the decision 'when to resign' is based on feel, which in turn is based on what you know about the game. I don't resent an opponent's playing on (or not much anyhow) when I'm fairly sure that opponent is a deal less strong (skilled or knowledgeable) than I am. I daresay I've carried on games against opponents stronger than I am that they would have resigned much earlier. Part of that superior knowledge is a finer feel about what resources are available in a difficult or losing game. Like anything else about chess this has to be learned.
As ccmcacollister's observed, however, courtesy will go far to mitigate any resentments a much stronger opponent might harbour against one who continues in an 'obviously' hopeless position.
I'm not sure anyone would argue (or has argued) that they would always play team games to the bitter end. I agree that would do the team no real favours. But there's nothing against playing with just that extra bit of determination and maybe carry on just a little further than they would otherwise.
pritchardtom 14 ( +1 | -1 )
I think that it is sometimes better to resign than to allow check mate to be enforced in your face. Hurts less :-)
zhnkiu 15 ( +1 | -1 )
resigning is honorable if you have a reason not to resign, even if you hope for a time out, then simply don't resign. this is a war game, there are tactics and there are tactics...
kewms 31 ( +1 | -1 )
If I'm confident that my opponent knows how to win the position, I'll resign. If I'm confident that I could win in my opponent's place, I'll resign.

Grinding out to the bitter end not only wastes everybody's time, including mine, it's just plain depressing. Learn the lesson and start over with a clean scoresheet.

ionadowman 47 ( +1 | -1 )
Circumstances alter cases... ...Last year I found myself on the wrong side of a forced mate, a 5-mover that involved some nice tactics (Q decoys defender to allow mate by a pair of rooks). As a courtesy to my opponent, rather than resign, I played it out. Whether she understood it or not as such, it seemed to me that faced with a forced mating sequence, particularly if it involved some attractive play, it were no discourtesy to play it out - 'for the record', so to speak.
ganstaman 26 ( +1 | -1 )
I feel bad Once, my opponent set up a classical smothered mate. Once I realized what was going on, I complimented my opponent and resigned. Later, I felt terrible. How often is a player going to get to pull off a smothered mate? He definitely deserved to see it to its conclusion. Sorry to whoever you are.
kewms 36 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree, it's nice to let your opponent demonstrate a beautiful mate.

On the other hand, if you're down a rook, two minor pieces, and 400 rating points, your chances of drawing are remote. While it might be instructive to see exactly how you get checkmated, the time might be better spent working on other facets of your game.

(Yes, one of my opponents is frustrating me.)

ccmcacollister 96 ( +1 | -1 )
ganstaman ... I've been in that position of wanting to let an opponent show a nice win. For EG in an actual postal game with David Cote' in the NTC #1 I sent a conditional sequence showing his expected Rook (for minor piece i think) sac as the first move or second move of it. This also let him know that I had seen it coming. (In an ironic note, the game is one of the few that are published online and also at a d-base ... and at least the d-base has the end of it all wrong. I couldnt even recognize the end of that Samisch KI)
But that is something one could do even better on GK where the conditionals are not seen till triggered. Put the win in Yourself as conditional moves, and you still have an out if he actually should miss something. But if not, youve shown you saw it, and allowed him to play it out at the same time. Sound good?
Of course you could also show the moves in commentary, or an early "Good Game" comment. But I think the other method has some advantage, on that slim chance...
}8-)) What do you think of the idea?
pwwaring 48 ( +1 | -1 )
ccmcacollister... I think that's a really good, and really original, idea - I'm definitely going to try it out when the right opportunity comes up. A nice way to speed things up and show appreciation for a game well played at the same time.

I like the conditional move feature here, but am always a little hesitant to use it. I don't really want to get anybody ticked off for no reason, and after reading some of the comments in these forums it seems you never know how someone will react...
ganstaman 93 ( +1 | -1 )
ccmcacollister Not a bad idea. My game was in blitz, so I couldn't use conditionals.

I've used conditionals here before for forced mates, but that was when I was the one mating. I hope not to get into a position where I'm getting mated, but if it is pretty I'll use conditionals (the game just isn't complete if I resign sooner). Look at this game, for example: -> . It was a great game, possibly the game of the century. Byrne certainly saw the mate, but he let the game go to it's pretty conclusion, and I don't think Fischer was at all offended.

I would use conditionals more, but like others I am too unsure of myself. I want the opportunity to recheck my analysis after not seeing the position for a while. Even when it's my turn, I sometimes won't make my move right away even if it looks good. I'll just come back the next day and re-analyze, hopefully finding the same line with no new refutations.
i_play_slowly 97 ( +1 | -1 )
Let's consider the ratings involved Hi, longbow196. Opponents with ratings <1300 will often blunder, so being behind by 12 points or so is not always the end of the world. Your opponent might throw his or her queen away with the next move, and then you're back in the game.
Simply ask yourself these questions before you make each move:
1) If I make this move, will my opponent put me in check?
2) If I make this move, will my opponent capture any of my pieces?
3) If I make this move, will my opponent threaten any of my pieces?
You can avoid many blunders by asking these questions, and it will only be a matter of time before your opponent's blunders allow you to catch up.
In the mean time, don't allow your opponent to talk you into resigning. It's just bluster. Politely beg your opponent's patience, take the time to do your blunder checks, and remain polite after you've come back from behind and knocked his or her socks off.
far1ey 4 ( +1 | -1 )
Another thing to ask yourself Can my opponent put me in CHECKMATE not just check. ;)
or2ak 25 ( +1 | -1 )
Hmm I know I'm no good at the end game but come on....
I'm pretty sure this game is over LOL
Resign already :(

Why wait and wait and wait? I dont get it....

ionadowman 57 ( +1 | -1 )
I looked at this a day ago... ...and much has changed, since. Perhaps your opponent could have resigned much sooner, but I wouldn't complain too hard: you had a forced sequence available (You could in fact have shortened the game by 1 move yourself...), and the play seemed to go pretty quickly.
Maybe he wanted to be shown how you would go about finishing off this kind of position. Well, you showed him there's not much wrong with your finishing technique. At that, it's good to exercise it now and then, and sometimes its nice to have the mate 'on record', so to speak.
or2ak 1 ( +1 | -1 )
Cheers :)