The etiquette of resigning

To resign a game is to acknowledge that your opponent has reached a position so strong that only through gross mistakes would he/she lose. It is also a mark of respect because it assumes your opponent will not in fact make such mistakes.

When is the right time to resign a game?

To my mind, resigning should be done as soon as the unwinnable position becomes apparent. Resigning a move or two before certain checkmate is actually a mark of disrespect, as it removes the opportunity for your opponent to make the killing blow.

Your thoughts?

A player resigns when they resign, for their own reasons. I resigned a game today because I was tired and thinking about real world™ issues. My opponent messaged me expressing surprise and saying he thought it was my game to lose. I just wasn't seeing it.

In short (or I guess long...) you can't generalize or assume. Sometimes I stay in a lost game just to see how lost I am (and yes, to see if a blunder may occur). It's all valid, all good.

I like what Tomjoad said, its all valid but personally I think resigning is cowardly. Unless your opponent is 200-300 points higher. Chess is a battle, a fight. Every good fight has ups and downs, punches and counter punches. Many a boxer knocked down in the first round comes back to win. The other team dominates the first three quarters, do we quit? Come from behind victories happen everyday? Historical battles are filled with momentum changes. He played the first 20 moves best I figure its my turn to play the next 20 best. I know I am a weak, mistake prone player, but Ive recently seen some very poor, blunderful play from people in the high 1700s.

    There is an opening, middle and endgame. Some players are very strong at the first two but have no endgame whatsoever. I was recently down a piece and 3 pawns in a tournament, as we were heading into the endgame my opponent made a minor error which I jumped on, it shook him and he blundered. He resigned in the next 5 moves.

     Unless my opponent is far superior I fight to the bitter end. I want to work on my endgame, test his ability to finish me off, and learn. We play one game a night at the chess club. I lose a piece early, do I resign? What ELSE am I going to do?  I came to play chess and I enjoy looking for the best possible move on the board no matter what the position, I dont understand why my opponent would not find pleasure in finding the best moves to finish me off with a graceful checkmate.

Well this is just my two cents... and this is from an OTB perspective.

In a tournament, if I'm in the process of crushing you, I'd appreciate a resignation.  Obviously this is fairly rare... it seems to me the majority of people play until mate is on the horizon.

However... there's a benefit to resigning.  If you keep the people who are smashing you happy, and treat them with some respect... they're MUCH more likely to do you a favour and analyze the game with you.  It's free coaching, in exchange for an extra 5 useless moves. 

That's how I look at it anyways... I'm a fairly quick resigner and I appreciate at least some reasonableness in return.  If you make me mate you I'll shake your hand and walk away.

-matt

yep, and also each player has only so much mental energy before fatigue so stalling a lost game 5 extra moves and 20 minutes of clock doesnt really help either player involved

In an OTB tournament if I loose a large amount of material (eg a piece) for no compensation at all I'll usually play a few more moves (1,2,or3) and if I still have nothing going I'll resign.  I think it shows a certain fighting spirit to not resign immediately and I think most tournament players expect you to play on at least a little -- of course if I won a rook for nothing and my opponent resigned immediately I wouldn't be surprised or think less of them.

As for allowing them to mate you, I have an opposite opinion, that making them play all the way to mate is so stubborn as to almost be rude (unless you're a beginner when I might understand).  The only time I've seen an OTB tournament game go till mate when the outcome was obvious many many moves ago is when one player was very upset (he thought he had a draw) and so refused to resign.  As an equal show of rudeness the expert level player (2000+ USCF) queened two pawns and mated him how beginners are taught to do with two rooks slowly walking him down the board.

I find this very enlightening and hope to hear more. I guess Im still a major beginner. Growing up in competitive sports the mindset is the opposite as far as respect. Never giving up is most admirable. I still have a lot to learn.

The answer is still the same from me we play till checkmate. 

 Funnily enough I think your the one who is right!  If a soccer team was 2-0 down and walked off the pitch that would be considered poor sportsmanship! 

There is a significant difference between chess and most other sports. In most sports, you do not face a handicap when you are losing. The example of a soccer team down 2-0 was given. Even if a soccer team is down 20-0, they can still play the remainder of the game to the best of their ability. But in a chess game, if someone has taken all your pieces, you can no longer play to the best of your ability.

In this respect, I think chess is more like boxing. A boxing match may be scheduled for 12 rounds, but a fighter can be knocked out before the end of the scheduled rounds. A fight may also be stopped by the referree even without knockout. In boxing, like in chess, your ability to perform is diminished the more you are losing.

Very well said Loomis.  I agree with your analogy completely.

And dont forget, from boxing we get the term :"to throw in the towel"

I really don't care if somebody resigns or not. It's their psyche that is getting crushed if they don't. Albeit somewhat annoying for the person with the winning position, he/she may take solace in the fact that every move on the board is another blow to your pitiful opponent. People that don't resign in lost positions against me pay dearly. Once I know I have an indisputable win I change my game plan. I no longer look for mate, (But I am very careful to avoid draws) I look to punish by means of material. Take everything he/she has and if they don't resign by the time you are through move 101of picking off their helpless pieces and the King is naked then go for the jugular. Then you politely tell them how well they played and how close the game was and that you felt they had chances the whole game through. The sarcasm will be burned into the depths of their pea sized brain forever. Then never play them again. If they don't observe etiquette, then I won't let them off the hook by being nice.

I was playing a game today where due to a couple of blunders on my part I lost a few pawns and a rook.  We both lost a couple of the other pieces - but pretty much evenly.  At one point my opponant suggested we stop that game and start over.  He added "because this is over".  I took "stop" as meaning I would resign.  I said no.  I still saw a challenge to come back and hopefully overtake my opponant.  Also, I think there's still a challenge to my opponant to finish it off and checkmate me.  I'm involved in yet another game where I have the advantage - and I'm finding it's not so easy to finish off my opponant. 

Well, those are my thoughts...  Perhaps I'm still learning.

-- Curt

A lot of people love being offended and will find a reason no matter what you do.  Winning the game isn't enough-- they demand the vanquished behave in a particular way to express proper respect of their betters.  The problem is, they don't all like their egos stroked in the same way, so even if you cared what your winning opponent thinks, you'd still have to guess.  Resign and you'll offend someone from group A-- play on with an obviously losing position and a member from group B will stomp off from the board even after they've won!

If there's a chance of an error by my opponent, I'll play on.  If I'm still having fun working out the lines and I might still learn something, I'll play on.  If I think my opponent will have a hissy fit and get offended?  Gosh, I'll have bad karma all the way until I click to my next game! 

--Cystem

 Nice name!

I agree with you though. You can't satisfy everyone. People complain when others resign too early and others when their opponent refuses to resign in a lost position. Now I don't know what to do. Maybe I could, just guessing here, accept both possibilities as part of the game and move on as the rules allow. hmmmmm..... Just a thought.

Im having a little resigning trouble right now myself. Im trying to get 5 completed games under my belt to play in the Grunfeld tournament (my favorite opening) and Im starting to get a few "won" games but it looks like Im going to have to play them out and miss the cutoff

Rule of thumb:

Look at your opponent's position. Will you play that position against someone rated 200 points above you for money? If yes, no question, resign.

I personally think players here resign too soon, but that's me. Either way, they are playing by the rules. The only breach of etiquette I have encountered is when players let the clock run out rather than resigning when they are in a lost position. I tend to see it with higher rated players - like they can't/won't admit that they lost. Makes me chuckle.

Well on a site like this with multiple games going I don't care if you play forever unless you're waiting all 3 days (or whatever the time control is) to make a move so that the game drags on for months.

At a club if we're using a clock I don't care either, playing 'till mate is a little amateurish but whatever.

At a tournament though it's just practical to resign in a lost position and doesn't have much to do with egos.  If it's the difference between having an hour for lunch/rest and only 15 minutes before the next 4-5 hour game it just makes sense for both players to save their energy for later when the current game is beyond saving.