I've never heard of anyone telling another player that any time is the proper time to resign; in fact, I'd feel somewhat insulted. If your opponent had such a clearly superior position, why would he feel that you should resign? Is finishing the game too taxing on him? If the player with a losing position refuses to resign, it's the other player's duty to prove his accuracy and finish the game off. After all, drawing opportunities are always on the board, be it by stalemate or the fifty move rule (which I'm sure has a proper term that I'm too lazy to look up).
to resign or not to resign
Sort:
it probably isn't the nicest thing to do to resign, but, that said, once your chess reaches a certain level (like 1400 or so) it is probably most appropriate to resign if your opponent is up by more than 6 points without compensation, and if you are in the 1800 level it is probably best to resign if you are down by 4 or more points. sometimes master+ resign when down a pawn and position. it is slightly insulting to keep playing on just because you are basically saying "i think you aren't good enough to win from here - you might make a mistake". but at the lower levels, i would recommend just to be courteous.
I would never suggest to my opponent to resign. If my opponent wants to play out to mate in a hopeless position then it is their right to do so.
It is improper to suggest to your opponent that they should resign. It is also improper to drag out a game for spite. I believe these forums are the place to bring up issues of improper behavior. I would like to know before beginning a game whether my potential opponent has committed any improper behavior in the past. I do not like to have any chat during a game.
Resigning is an essential part of chess etiquette. So is silence during the game.
At another site I play at this was a major forum topic. The thread went on for pages and pages. Erik makes a good point. Ingrained within chess is a system of ethics, and I think once someone has a good understanding of chess principles and how the game is played on the board, those ethics are also important to understand. One of those ethics is that when a game is strategically decided, barring any remaining tricks and traps, the losing player should bow out. It can rob the game of much of it's joy having to play out a game whose outcome has long since been decided.
However I will also say I think these ethics, especially the one being discussed here, is most important in tournament play. I believe that here we are playing for fun and for education. My feeling is that if either player feels there is an educational value in playing a position out, then the game should go on.
I routinely play against players of much higher strength than myself. I enjoy it when they play through a combination, or a strategic maneuver for my benefit. Other times they explain the finishing strategy or tactic to me and i resign the game to look through the continuation on my own time.
There is something to be said for resigning a lost game. It is a good idea, but the player who is resigning should completely understand why he is resigning. If he does not, than the worst thing he could do is to resign. He will not have learned anything. If there is educational value in playing out a position, then play it out. If it is a straightforward win and both sides can see it, than there is no educational value to playing it out, only a waste of time.
It is your game, resign it when you feel the time is right. Just understand that there are some stronger players who may not play against you again if you force them to play through mate every time.
I tend to agree with Erik. Chess is a game where manners and good sportsmanship are hallmarks the game. It has been suggested that I might consider resigning at a certain point in a game, but it has always been followed me either asking why or my opponent giving me an explanation for the requested resignation. It depends on who you're playing. By this, I mean that there are players who are simply snobs who enjoy the thought of belittling an opponent during a game. I play opponents who are much stronger players than I am and they are kind enough to explain things to me, especially tactics and their request for a resignation. These are honorable individuals who play the game as an art, not as series of hollow, lifeless, mathematical victories. It's a tough call. However, if you read the board and the piece positioning, discovering that there is no way out of your situation, it is best to take the civilized road and resign.
ghostofmaroczy wrote:
Resigning is an essential part of chess etiquette. So is silence during the game.
that is a matter of personal opinion :) but we're working on a feature to disable chat.
It really depends on the perception of the player that is down. If he/she feels there are possible drawing chances then I say go for it. Don't resigb, let me get some target practice in. Why should I get upset and impatient if I know I already have the win? I know it's coming and it's my responsibility to prove it. Trust me, it can't be at all satisfying for the opponent that is down by 8 points to struggle to survive. Let all of my opponents that stew in the juices of their losses if they are too afraid to resign. My coach told me that resigning at a proper point isn't about etiquitte, it's about saving my morale for the future. The longer I beat myself up and waste my energy in a lost game, the worse I'll play later. So again I say, bring on the refusers to resinging because my morale goes up exponentially while theirs declines.
ChessDweeb wrote: Trust me, it can't be at all satisfying for the opponent that is down by 8 points to struggle to survive.... My coach told me that resigning at a proper point isn't about etiquitte, it's about saving my morale for the future. The longer I beat myself up and waste my energy in a lost game, the worse I'll play later.....
very well said....
I agree that a player should resign in a lost position. It's insulting not to.
That said, I would never suggest to my opponent that he/she should resign, regardless of what the position looked like. That would also be an insult.
Thanks to all who have responded to my issue about resigning...as a beginner I'm not alway sure when a draw or even a victory is realistic. I definitely agree that dragging out a game for no reason is not proper. Your comments are very useful. thank you all.
I also think that players should resign in a lost position. I know lots of players and all them resign when they know they are lost. The attitude of continuing a lost game is not well considered when playing chess tournaments.
The number of people I've played who resign as soon as I take their queen is staggering, especially since some of them have still been in a slightly stronger position than I was at that moment in the game, but I guess thats more to do with the chess player's love affair with their queen.
Since I'm quite a low level player (<1400) I often make mistakes, as do my opponents, for that reason I don't often resign (or expect my opponent to) because what in a higher level game would be seen as an impossible situation would not always be so in my case. I'll always try for a sneaky stalemate if possible. But yes, if I was playing an obviously strong opponent I would probably resign earlier... I guess that could be seen as an insult to the players I'm playing alongside at the moment, or maybe its just a fact that we're more likely to make mistakes. I certainly wouldn't resign if I thought it possible my opponent could make a mistake, as thats ignoring the human element of chess.
i believe it's the defender's choice. how does a less experienced player know when to resign? pershaps the experience of playing the game out well help them(know when to resign next game). You never win or draw by resigning!
If everyone would resign if it seems disadvantageous for him/her, then no one could ever say "Check Mate" anymore. How would that be?
In one game I was losing, and then in 1-2 turns the play completely turned upside down and I finally won!
It's not insulting at all not to give up!
If I play soccer and it seems hopeless to me to still win, do I give up the game by resigning?
If you think that any further play may be fruitless, then of course consider resigning; on the other hand, if you believe that you can learn something by playing on then do so. We all have to start somewhere, and some players are more understanding than others.
I confess to being another person who tends not to resign, often because although I can see I'm on the road to defeat, I can't always see exactly how to get there. And when I go through other people's games, I sometimes get frustrated if there's a resignation and I can't see why. Maybe it forces me into thinking through it more for myself, but it still bothers me sometimes.
That said, I will generally resign if I'm losing in two circumstances: first, if the player is significantly stronger than I am, and I can see something approximating how they'll mate; and second, if I actually don't want to give someone the satisfaction of saying 'Checkmate' haha!
I generally prefer people not to resign against me (on the rare occasions when it's an option...!) precisely because I feel the 'proper' end to the game is mate. But that could just be me.
Oh, and I *certainly* don't think it's appropriate to suggest to your opponent that they resign. I'm with both mastermind2007 and ChessDweeb (and ChessDweeb's coach), despite their slightly differing positions on the matter.
It can be frustrating when you think it's appropriate for your opponent to resign but he or she chooses to play on. Yet I believe it is up to the individual player to decide when to call it quits. Tonight an opponent suggested it was "time" for me to resign; adding that he did not want to offend me but that "usually at this point it is proper to resign." What do you folks think about suggesting to an opponent that it's time to give up?