I resign when I feel pretty certain that I could win, given the other guy's position (against stronger or near equal opposition... I play on for a bit against weaker players).
When should I resign?
Sort:
When you are losing by a lot.
When you feel that you have no realistic winning/drawing chances.
When you are down by 2+ pawns (without sufficient compensation of course) or your position is completely disatrous. (So if you are a knight down in the middlegame-resign) Provided you cannot reach an opp/ same colored bishops or a rook endgame. In the case of a rook endgame though, its really hard to defend 2 pawns down and more than likely the other side will convert it but this is good practice. I find it hard to defend these 1 pawn down...
And this would be pretty rare especially if the pawn was straight up dropped or lost to some tactic in the Mid-Game which would, in turn, make the position disastrous and therefore you should just resign because you have no *realistic* winning chances
I think at your level, people *should* be able to win games 2 pawns up (provided you have close to 0 compensation for it and its not an opp or same color bishop endgame) and plus, how is it even fun to play it out? Play it out like maybe a few times but you will find it hardly gives you practice unless its some special case. If you do play it out though, always be aggressive when down so much material.
*Note* by 2 pawns down, I actually mean 2 pawns down and not the imbalance of being an exchange down
To sum it up, if you just 'straight up' lose 2+ pawns, you should probably resign lol..
PrawnEatsPrawn wrote:
I resign when I feel pretty certain that I could win, given the other guy's position (against stronger or near equal opposition... I play on for a bit against weaker players).
This is a good rule of thumb. Except if you spot a possible swindle that you think the other guy might not see:
1) Can you sacrifice everything for a possible stalemate?
2) Can you sacrifice material and gain a perpetual check?
3) Can you manipulate his material advantage to a known book draw? (his queen vs a c or f pawn on the 7th, or leave him with a Rook pawn and wrong coloured Bishop?
4) Can you leave him with a won game, which is notoriusly hard to win, eg Q+p vs Q, or N + B, the latter I would ask even very strong players to demonstrate they know the technique, remembering GM Epishin failed to win that.
If there's no swindle, resign.
to those who think someone should have resigned in a position try setting the position up against chessmaster at the highest level.
if you are sure he should have resigned you should with no problem be able to beat chessmaster (playing your opponents pieces).
you will soon find out that 2 pawns up against chessmaster isn't sufficient to win except if you are in the endgame.
bobbyDK wrote:
to those who think someone should have resigned in a position try setting the position up against chessmaster at the highest level.
if you are sure he should have resigned you should with no problem be able to beat chessmaster (playing your opponents pieces).
you will soon find out that 2 pawns up against chessmaster isn't sufficient to win except if you are in the endgame.
Bobby, if you're not good enough to win with 2 pawns up, you're not good enough to defend with 2 pawns down :) Just kidding. But material is only one factor in deciding whether to resign. I've resigned while being up in material.
In politics, you resign when the CFR tells you to resign. In chess, you never resign because we need "Why don't they resign?" threads.
trysts wrote:
In politics, you resign when the CFR tells you to resign. In chess, you never resign because we need "Why don't they resign?" threads.
Good one!
My rule of thumb: Resign when the outcome of the game is clearly not a win or draw for you.
I just went all the way to what I knew would be checkmate just to get as many moves as possible in.
When you feel like it.
Estragon wrote:
I never understood the complaining about "people who won't resign" - it's a sadistic pleasure for me to execute the stubborn.
LOL, whatever you do, just don't take the scenic route, else you open up a whole new bunch of "Unsportsmanlike- he promoted to a Bishop" posts.
Estragon wrote:
Look, a chess game only ends in checkmate, resignation, or draw by the various methods. You are perfectly entitled to force your opponent to checkmate you in every game you are losing, if that is your preference.
Personally, I can stand some pain if I have some hope. Once I have no hope for the position - believing even a draw beyond the realm of reasonable possibility - I will resign, acknowledging my opponent's achievement, and move on to the next game. I don't wish to play out hopeless positions until I am mated; I know when I am beaten and want nothing more than to get the heck out of there.
But that's me. Your mileage may vary. If you enjoy playing out your lost games to mate, do it. I never understood the complaining about "people who won't resign" - it's a sadistic pleasure for me to execute the stubborn. I never object if you drag out my wins, but I have no desire to prolong my losses.
From this remark I can only deduce that you are not an experienced OTB player who didnt get to have a decent lunch between rounds because some hack drug a totally lost game out an extra hour just because it was possible to do so. I once had an opponent that was in check and facing a rather obvious mate in two, I was over 2200 at the time and he was an A class player, so I know he saw the mate and I know he knew I see the mate... he had more than 30 min left on his clock and instead of resigning, or moving so I could go ahead and mate he got up and started walking around the room....... I am sorry but such people are jerks and those who defend such behavior may be even worse.
I should add that I think a distinction should be made where online and otb chess is concerned since those who refuse to resign exhibit a much more serious "flaw" in their character when its an otb game, imo. This is due to the nature of otb tournaments in which there is usually precious little time between rounds, so that unnecessarily prolonging a game has more serious consequences than in online play.
They might be hoping that you have a heart stroke, or if it's on the internet a power blackout.
Reb wrote:
Estragon wrote:
Look, a chess game only ends in checkmate, resignation, or draw by the various methods. You are perfectly entitled to force your opponent to checkmate you in every game you are losing, if that is your preference.
Personally, I can stand some pain if I have some hope. Once I have no hope for the position - believing even a draw beyond the realm of reasonable possibility - I will resign, acknowledging my opponent's achievement, and move on to the next game. I don't wish to play out hopeless positions until I am mated; I know when I am beaten and want nothing more than to get the heck out of there.
But that's me. Your mileage may vary. If you enjoy playing out your lost games to mate, do it. I never understood the complaining about "people who won't resign" - it's a sadistic pleasure for me to execute the stubborn. I never object if you drag out my wins, but I have no desire to prolong my losses.
From this remark I can only deduce that you are not an experienced OTB player who didnt get to have a decent lunch between rounds because some hack drug a totally lost game out an extra hour just because it was possible to do so. I once had an opponent that was in check and facing a rather obvious mate in two, I was over 2200 at the time and he was an A class player, so I know he saw the mate and I know he knew I see the mate... he had more than 30 min left on his clock and instead of resigning, or moving so I could go ahead and mate he got up and started walking around the room....... I am sorry but such people are jerks and those who defend such behavior may be even worse.
I see your point, now for the counter measures (preparation is key).
Bring the ol' lunch box along to the table and enjoy a hearty meal while the clock runs out. - Even better; ask the opponent to fetch you a sandwich, now that "he's allready up and about"
Isn't it possible to have the arbiter over for a quick assesment in these situations?
I often speculate how this attitude/action could in any way relate to what the root of the action would be, namely personal pride. Nothing proud in acting like a 5 yrs old, eh?
I dont think you are permitted to eat at the board in fide events, dont know about uscf. Anyone know what the uscf rule is on this ?
Reb here is making the point that you shouldn't be a jerk, which is always valid advice. Still, at your level (@ OP), you shouldn't feel pressured to resign if you are uncertain about your chances. It's also impolite to ask your opponent to resign if the situation appears to be unclear.
If you're uncertain, feel free to play on. It's perfectly acceptable at your level. Most of the time in Internet chess (especially in correspondence), time is not a concern. It's only when you know that you're being a jerk that you should stop and take a look in the mirror. But that applies to everything else in life as well.
In the middle game, are there any guidelines on how far behind you can be just in points of material before everything is hopeless?
I mean I know certain things like one bishop and a king wouldn't constitute sufficient mating material, but what I'm talking about is, in the middle game, do people usually resign if they're behind say 9 points in material, no passed pawns, and don't have what looks like an amazingly good position or anything?
Also, given my noob level, should I just play everything out just for practice even if I'm pretty sure I can't possibly win or draw?