When to Resign

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply
knightowl
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 12:54 pm

When to Resign

Post by knightowl » Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:29 pm

:?:
I'm down a knight in an email game at IECC. Should I resign? Technically, if we're equal players, and my opponent doesn't make any mistakes he should win, right? What's the consensus out there about when one should resign? Down a knight? Down a rook? A queen? Is it positional? Positional can get a bit fuzzy. I'd like to do the right thing.

knightmare
Uranium
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 1999 10:56 pm

Post by knightmare » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:37 pm

You are down a knight because you made a mistake right? If as you say your opponent is only your equal, then there is an equal chance he will return the favor with a mistake of his own. Don't resign till all hope is gone!!

knightowl
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 12:54 pm

Post by knightowl » Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:02 pm

I found this on the site of the Kingston Chess Club. What do you all think? :?:

30. And fittingly last but not least, learn when to resign gracefully. If you are playing a game and are a Rook down or more, with no attack, passed pawn (a Pawn whose passage is unopposed by other pawns and thus is a serious threat to promote to a queen), or other significant compensation, against a knowledgeable player who is not likely to blunder badly enough for you to get back in the game, graciously resign and get on with the next game.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:15 pm

What point is there in continuing even if you are planning on your opponent to make a mistake? It won't make you a better player if your opponent makes a mistake. You're really just wasting time on a "lost" game when you could be spending time studying a game you have equal chances of winning on.

For CC chess, I generally resign when I'm down a piece against a player I consider as good as myself. Against a player better than me, I normally resign when down a few pawns in an otherwise equal possition. In blitz chess I resign later as not as much time is being wasted.

In blitz chess, if my opponent doesn't resign when he's down, I normally try to mate him with a knight and bishop. After all of my opponent's pieces are gone, I normally "accidently" drop pieces so my opponent thinks he's got a chance at a draw. :twisted:

knightmare
Uranium
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 1999 10:56 pm

Post by knightmare » Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:53 pm

I must respectfully disagree. If your goal is to play perfect chess, then by all means resign at the first minor error. But to my mind chess is WAR game and I want to win and will not go quietly into the night.

keithstuart
Uranium
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 1999 3:52 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Post by keithstuart » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:14 pm

I agree with knightmare in that i certainly dont resign unless i am sure i cant get back into it either by mistakes or just gradual postional errors building up to my advantage

plus i reckon i have a pretty good defence aspect of the game so at the least you'd be geting a good work out in forcing the win which helps improve both your attacking game and my defending game

wulebgr
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: PNW USA
Contact:

Post by wulebgr » Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:48 am

Resign when the position and the play of your opponent makes clear that a loss is imminent.

neric
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:26 am

Post by neric » Mon Aug 02, 2004 2:32 am

It all depends on compensation. If you are a knight down for nothing you may as well resign. If you got some sort of compensation you should play on until the position is clear.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:22 pm

wulebgr wrote:Resign when the position and the play of your opponent makes clear that a loss is imminent.
Then I'd have to resign most games before I even start...

tellymetwise
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:48 pm

Post by tellymetwise » Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:17 pm

Resigning totaly depends on which level you play.
Up to 1000/1100 (tournament rating) you might continue with more then 2 pieces down (or almost any number of pieces for stalemate)
Up to 1400/1500 you might continue with just a piece down.
up to 1700/1800 you might try it with a pawn down
After 1800, it is a question of positional play

If you are in a lost position, but want to see how your opponent plays it out for educational reasons, you might always ask politely if the game may be continued for a couple of more moves.

Note: above ratings are my own experiences, and not from any statistical research.

muabdib
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 10:04 am
Location: Black Forrest, Southern Germany

To knightowl:CC- or email-chess

Post by muabdib » Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:01 am

As there is no rule when to resign and when not, you might ask 100 guys and gals on that site and you’ll get 100 different answers cause they are all individual and based upon experience and strength. So I won’t tell you when you should resign and when not, but I’ll tell you in which case I resign and when not. And I believe my old friend David (White) would give you the same answer (hopefully he does when reading this message): When playing against a strong (I mean really strong ) opponent who totally overplayed me, leaving me in a cramped position with no chances of counterplay and with my back to the wall and even if there is no imminent mate or loss I resign without being a pawn or piece down. To resign that way honors at the same time performance and achievement of my opponent. But whenever I see the least chance to complicate the game (while being overplayed), leading my opponent into a very unstable and unbalanced position I’d never resign even being a pawn or piece down.

Regards
Hans

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

When to resign

Post by davidswhite » Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:44 am

I fully agree with Hans(muabdib) about when it is appropriate to resign
against a very strong opponent.
So long as even a scintilla of counterplay is possible,I continue even though it's almost certainly a poor investment of time and effort.It's
simply not in my,or Hans',nature to resign in that circumstance.
However,absent that minimal litmus test,resignation is not only appropriate but also deserved.
Remember,in correspondence games against top-flight opponents,hoping
for a blunder in mid to end -game is simply a waste of time.

algernon
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 3:51 pm

Post by algernon » Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:28 pm

I've occasionaly seen players resign a winning position, but much more commonly play on a losing position in a state of depression and miss chances to get back into the game.

My general approach is this:

1. If I'm totally depressed about the game I won't play more than another two or three moves before resigning ( I have won games by digging myself out of the depression and then combining genius with luck (in some proportion or other :D ) and found an unexpected resource. There is no point in playing on if you are demoralized - you won't find good moves in that state of mind.

2. If I see that my position is hopeless I will resign as soon as my opponent's moves demonstrate that he/she understands this as clearly as I do. Typically, this will be after trying any desperate (and sometimes ingenious) attempts to complicate or otherwise outwit my opponent only to see them all easily refuted. To play on then I think may be insulting as well as a waste of time.

neric
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:26 am

Post by neric » Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:19 am

Actually some people don't really know when to resign. In two of my games I am a full queen (!!) up for nothing. In like five others I am a piece up and in one game it is three pawns for nothing.

Now that would be understandable if this was over the board play or even blitz, but this is correspondence?!?!?! Sometimes I am wondering what my opponents think of me.

speartooth
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:28 pm

Post by speartooth » Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:06 pm

Neric,

My sympathies. I don't think it's rude to suggest that an opponent resign, if he is rated 200 points or more below you. The polite way to ask for a resignation is to tell your opponent how you plan to stop all possible counterplay and how you plan to force a win. The resignation should come within a few moves when he realizes that even knowing your plan, he cannot stop it.

I've come to realize that this is not only a correspondence site. Correspondence chess is played here, but there is another form of chess here, too. It appears the site fosters a mutual, ongoing, simultaneous match. The amount of thought given to a move is less than ten or twenty seconds and it's off to the next board. This kind of chess is not traditional correspondence chess, it is a new form of recreational chess that is an alternative to speed chess. Players "self-handicap" by selecting the number of opponents they play, assuring an even game between uneven opponents. I think that this is an important development in the evolution of chess and is a legitimate recreational form of the game.

This site can be used for traditional correspondence chess, but your selection of opponents must be judicious. I am involved in a match where the originator offered a _ten_ day increment. I assume that everyone who joined is willing to play a game that will last about a year.

This site is not as tame as IECC. Everyone is welcome and there are few restrictions. Fortunately, it is not as wild as Yahoo, but we do have here alot of new chess players that don't realize that it's rude continue a lost game to checkmate. Some of these players may be even be annoyed by an opponent's resignation because it denies them "the thrill of the kill."

I may not resign as soon as my opponents want me to, but I've resigned in _all_ my lost games. (I don't mean to be sanctimonious, I'm sure some of them were mate on the move.) On the other hand, about half of my opponents have insisted that I play to checkmate in the games I have won.

Any player that doesn't resign when down a queen or two probably never resigns. In order to avoid these players a quick check of the archives will show it. Do an advanced search on your potential opponent as White with the winner set to Black. Then do a Browser find on the text "checkmate". This will find the pgn tag that says how the game ended. If you find too many checkmates, then this opponent is not for you.

jstripes
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:56 pm

Post by jstripes » Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:46 pm

I have lost one game that ended in checkmate, and consider it a blunder to have taken the game that far. In fact, I felt embarrassed.

neric
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:26 am

Post by neric » Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:26 am

Funny, but amongst my 20 games played so far, 4 ended with checkmate. It seems to me that lots of people are treating these games like blitz games.

zugzwanged
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:22 am

Re: When to Resign

Post by zugzwanged » Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:32 am

knightowl wrote::?:
I'm down a knight in an email game at IECC. Should I resign? Technically, if we're equal players, and my opponent doesn't make any mistakes he should win, right? What's the consensus out there about when one should resign? Down a knight? Down a rook? A queen? Is it positional? Positional can get a bit fuzzy. I'd like to do the right thing.
You can try to create some magic formula for when an appropriate time to resign is, but that really isn't possible. I find that the tournament chess players that are constantly in search of some magic axiom or formula to follow, both in their chess playing, and in other areas, are always amongst the weakest and lowest rated in our club. If the game of chess were simple enough to be reduced down to a set of principles and procedures, it wouldn't be the wonderful game it is. Chess is a game that requires constant innovation and dynamic thinking. Those who don't like to think and prefer instead to follow rules and guidelines to the exclusion of thinking should avoid chess and take up an easier game.

To know when or when not to resign, all you really need is common sense. When your opponent has a clear plan for victory and has demonstrated by his moves that he is aware of what that clear plan entails......and you are devoid of any real conterplay to try to prevent him from realizing that plan......you show him/her that you were fortunate enough to have been taught manners in your youth, and are a good sportsman (sportswoman), and you resign the game. I've played so many email/correspondance games where I have positions that meet the above criterion and my opponent refuses to resign the game and just makes the minimum amount of moves in the time alloted in order to drag the game out needlessly. Perhaps hoping that the other player will not be able to make a schedualed move at some point and forfeit on time. That is truly pathetic behavoir, and a person like that does not deserve to be a player of the royal game.

neric
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:26 am

Post by neric » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:22 am

http://www.slowchess.com/viewgame.cgi?p ... 2463&r=138

http://www.slowchess.com/viewgame.cgi?p ... 2464&r=138

In 190 days my opponent will lose on time, but I expect him to make a few more useless moves to stretch it even longer.

tellymetwise
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:48 pm

Post by tellymetwise » Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:45 am

Hello Neric,

Looking at the games I can only say that stardom does not show any indication that he will time out in your games, nor that he will play on in an obvious losing game.

This is also obvious looking at stardom's history of games, where he resigned most of the his losing games.

Have some patience, and enjoy your repaying energy you've put in the game.

zugzwanged
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:22 am

Post by zugzwanged » Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:22 pm

tellymetwise wrote:Hello Neric,

Looking at the games I can only say that stardom does not show any indication that he will time out in your games, nor that he will play on in an obvious losing game.

This is also obvious looking at stardom's history of games, where he resigned most of the his losing games.

Have some patience, and enjoy your repaying energy you've put in the game.

You're a joke! Your buddy "stardom" here should have resigned 10 moves ago in that game. He has no pieces and no threatening pawns against two strong bishops. It is idiots like you and stardom that cause alot of decent people to stop playing email chess.

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

1. d4, Black resigns.

Post by cornstalk » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:20 pm

I once sat down to a game of rated chess, played 1. d4 and punched the clock; whereupon, my opponent resigned! Someone watching the game said, "I knew that 1. d4 was a strong move, but I didn't realize HOW strong!"

In correspondence chess, which is what play here at slowchess.com is, it is often wise to resign as soon as you are reasonably sure that you will lose. The time and energy you spend trying to save a lost position is better spent on your ongoing games not yet decided. Someone said, "Yes, but you must first make certain you are 100% lost," but I disagree. Reasonable certainty of defeat is enough to justify tossing in the towel, at least when other critical games are in progress.

When you have no other games in progress, or if you do but don't care about optimizing your rating for a given amount of time devoted to chess play, play on as long as you like; it's your right and no one should criticize you for it (though you will annoy some people).

I was playing a correspondence game against an old friend who was hanging on against all hope in a lost position. I wrote, "What, are you hoping for a comet to strike Columbus, Ohio [where I live]?" He resigned immediately, but I later decided that my remark had been more rude than funny.

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Cornstalk

Post by davidswhite » Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:59 pm

Mark, is that you? Are you back with us?

This site has much missed you...and so have I personally!

Warmest welcome back( if it is,in fact,my old friend).

David

cornstalk
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 1999 1:42 pm

Yeah, it's me.

Post by cornstalk » Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:59 pm

It's me all right. :)

knightowl
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 31, 2000 12:54 pm

does otb change anything?

Post by knightowl » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:06 pm

Would you change your standards on when to resign if you were playing otb, touch move, timed, and there was prize money? :?:

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

"does otb change anything?"

Post by davidswhite » Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:06 pm

OTB changes everything

mic
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:31 pm

resigning?!!!!

Post by mic » Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:47 pm

I usually do not resign unless I am absolutely certain of defeat or I want to wait and let my opponents rating pick up alittle so I won't lose as many points(honest). However, I have won many a game on this site coming from behind...also one of my games involved a four move forced stalemate from a dead lost position...so if you are any kind of a player/fighter in the royal game of chess you will not hurt my feelings about not resigning when you are down. I am just careful not to let you stalemate me. Props to those players who play on and fight to the end. The idiots that profess to have you lay down and go meekly can join another site...I choose to fight to the bitter end.

Mic :D :idea: :idea: :twisted: :evil:
enjoyed chess for thirty years...have lots of books and mags but never time to study. Maybe when I retire...chess strength has gone done ratings are unrealistic

keithstuart
Uranium
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 1999 3:52 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Post by keithstuart » Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:09 am

I generally play on to see if i can salvage a draw.

In some of my tournament games i knew i was slightly behind but also knew my opponent had far less time left than me. It is perfectly fair and honest to try and hang on long enough for your opponent to lose on time as its all part of the game.

I also play at IECG and in a current game it is most likely a drawn position i am in with K plus 2 pawns for me against K plus knight for him but as I have the chance of promoting one or both of the pawns i am not offering a draw until it's all over. I know i cant lose as K plus Knight can't mate so i am purely trying to force a win.

cohonas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:23 pm

Re: resigning?!!!!

Post by cohonas » Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:55 am

mic wrote:I usually do not resign unless I am absolutely certain of defeat or I want to wait and let my opponents rating pick up alittle so I won't lose as many points(honest). However, I have won many a game on this site coming from behind...also one of my games involved a four move forced stalemate from a dead lost position...so if you are any kind of a player/fighter in the royal game of chess you will not hurt my feelings about not resigning when you are down. I am just careful not to let you stalemate me. Props to those players who play on and fight to the end. The idiots that profess to have you lay down and go meekly can join another site...I choose to fight to the bitter end.

Mic :D :idea: :idea: :twisted: :evil:
Actually it is very common for really strong players to resign even when losing only one pawn as they are good enough to see if the have compensation for it or not.

It is worth to point out that you will (most likely) strengthen your game if you start looking at chess more objectively and resign if you make a relative to big mistake as you are more alert and tend to look deeper if you loose the "i will fight to the bitter end" attitude.
If you are hellbend on playing on no matter how bad you blunder, then you will have a lowered sense of danger.

A psychologist once tried to define the differences between really strong players and average players, by having them speak out loud what their thought process was during games that this psychologist would monitor, and if memory serves me right _THE_ main difference was the ability to aknowledge when the opponent had the better position and their sense of danger. The average player would tend to force his play on his opponent when he felt his position was not as good, where the really strong player would tend to drop his plans of attack and play with the position instead of against it as IMO friction favours the player with the best position/better player.

Now another aspect is that there are two main ways that you can have a weak position 1) you can be down material with little or no compensation
2) you can be weak positionally and off course you can suffer from both 1 and 2 but hopefully we don't need to go into that :)
Well if you are down material with no compensation, there is little to do and you might as well resign, if you have a positionally weak position then it all depends on what phase of the game you are in, if it is the endgame then there is almost never anything to do to salvage it, however if you are in the middle game with lot's of pieces on the board and equal material, then i see no problem playing on as there are often tactical shots that will at worst have you fighting for a draw for the rest of the game.

My main point here is, if you want to improve your game, and i say this because strong players are very rarely in doubt when to resign, then be honest to yourself in terms of evaluation and admit your mistakes by resigning when you make them as you then learn they have consequences, don't rely on your opponent to make a mistake and blunder away his queen, if you do chances are you will never improve.

Post Reply