PDA

View Full Version : Resigning



Zelgiusfan5000
08-04-2020, 01:01 PM
Are there any rules against resigning in a position where it’s impossible to lose?

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2020, 01:24 PM
Are there any rules against resigning in a position where it’s impossible to lose?

No, though in an unrated and low-level junior interschool tournament I had a situation of this kind once. One of the players had mating material and the other had only a king. The player with mating material was frustrated that she could not work out how to win and resigned. I explained that the worst that could happen to her was a draw and told the players to continue.

Also of note here is the famous Sztern-Lundquist NSW Champs 1983. See https://www.kingpinchess.net/2010/03/not-the-british-chess-magazine/ Black (to move) offered a draw, White asked to see Black's move, Black played a queen sacrifice forcing mate and White resigned forgetting that he could have accepted the draw.

Ian_Rogers
08-04-2020, 01:50 PM
No, though in an unrated and low-level junior interschool tournament I had a situation of this kind once. One of the players had mating material and the other had only a king. The player with mating material was frustrated that she could not work out how to win and resigned. I explained that the worst that could happen to her was a draw and told the players to continue.

Also of note here is the famous Sztern-Lundquist Adelaide 1983. See https://www.kingpinchess.net/2010/03/not-the-british-chess-magazine/ Black (to move) offered a draw, White asked to see Black's move, Black played a queen sacrifice forcing mate and White resigned forgetting that he could have accepted the draw.

Sztern- Lundquist was played in the NSW Championship, not in Adelaide, and the loser went on to win the title.

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2020, 02:06 PM
Sztern- Lundquist was played in the NSW Championship, not in Adelaide, and the loser went on to win the title.

Thanks; post corrected.

Pierre Dénommée
14-04-2020, 02:25 PM
Are there any rules against resigning in a position where it’s impossible to lose?

You cannot resign a dead position, you cannot resign if a quintuple repetition has occurred, you cannot resign if a sequence of 75 moves without capture and pawn movement has occurred, you cannot resign if you have checkmated your opponent's king or if the arbiter has notified you that you have won on time.

In general, you cannot resign if the game is already terminated even if you did not realise that the game is over. Long ago, the FIDE Rules Commission issued this interpretation. Player A plays a legal move that produce stalemate, this move is so threatening (unavoidable mate in one), that his opponent, player B, resign. It is latter found there was a stalemate on the board. The resignation is null and void and is considered to have never occurred. There was no game in progress at the moment of the resignation, so nothing can be resigned.

From the FIDE General Regulation for Competitions

9.4 Where it is clear that results have been arranged – see FIDE Handbook E.01 – Laws of Chess article 11.1, the CA shall impose suitable penalties – see FIDE Handbook E.01 –Laws of Chess article 12.9 .

If the arbiter is convinced that the resignation of a position impossible to loose by normal means is the result of an agreement between the players, he may take action. The rule does not grant the arbiter the power to order the game to continue. In a famous case in Montreal, a junior player that could win the junior price was playing against an adult that could no longer win any price. The junior asked the adult to loose in exchange of a payment, but did so in a public place in front of many witnesses. The final result was 0-0 for arranging the game result. A disciplinary hearing for bringing the game of chess into disrepute followed the incident

Craig_Hall
14-04-2020, 03:33 PM
Obviously a game that has ended within the rules can't be resigned, but in theory a player could resign an unloseable position eg KR vs K or KQ vs KN. Agree that it would be reasonable for an Arbiter to investigate collusion/match-fixing. Potential explanations could be hearing a phone go off and erroneously assuming it was yours, or believing that the opponent was check/stalemated when they aren't and stopping the clock and setting up the pieces.

Pierre Dénommée
15-04-2020, 05:14 AM
Obviously a game that has ended within the rules can't be resigned, but in theory a player could resign an unloseable position eg KR vs K or KQ vs KN. Agree that it would be reasonable for an Arbiter to investigate collusion/match-fixing. Potential explanations could be hearing a phone go off and erroneously assuming it was yours, or believing that the opponent was check/stalemated when they aren't and stopping the clock and setting up the pieces.

The arbiter should never immediately conclude that a lack of judgement when resigning is an arranged match. The Quebec Chess Federation did publish many positions that were resigned in actual play despite the fact that there was no valid reason to do so. The funniest situation was the resignation of a player who believed that a back row mate was unavoidable but who had failed to realised that his opponent's king was in check, thus making the checkmating move illegal. If the player had let the opponent deliver checkmate with an illegal move, this checkmate would have been declared null and void.

This site has many examples of bad resignations that could not be penalised unless the arbiter can prove that the game has been arranged because it is not possible to infer the arrangement from the resignation itself. https://chess24.com/en/read/news/the-ultimate-blunder-resigning-a-won-position

Resignation of a won position is not so rare, arranged games that can be penalised are extremely rare.

Arbiters must be very careful when declaring that a game has been arranged because such decision may have a huge impact on the honour and the reputation of the players involved. Furthermore, most National Federations and local Leagues will suspend the guilty persons.

Desmond
15-04-2020, 08:53 AM
This site has many examples of bad resignations that could not be penalised unless the arbiter can prove that the game has been arranged because it is not possible to infer the arrangement from the resignation itself. https://chess24.com/en/read/news/the-ultimate-blunder-resigning-a-won-position
Some very amusing desperado tactics there :)

Craig_Hall
16-04-2020, 07:17 AM
The arbiter should never immediately conclude that a lack of judgement when resigning is an arranged match. The Quebec Chess Federation did publish many positions that were resigned in actual play despite the fact that there was no valid reason to do so. The funniest situation was the resignation of a player who believed that a back row mate was unavoidable but who had failed to realised that his opponent's king was in check, thus making the checkmating move illegal. If the player had let the opponent deliver checkmate with an illegal move, this checkmate would have been declared null and void.

This site has many examples of bad resignations that could not be penalised unless the arbiter can prove that the game has been arranged because it is not possible to infer the arrangement from the resignation itself. https://chess24.com/en/read/news/the-ultimate-blunder-resigning-a-won-position

Resignation of a won position is not so rare, arranged games that can be penalised are extremely rare.

Arbiters must be very careful when declaring that a game has been arranged because such decision may have a huge impact on the honour and the reputation of the players involved. Furthermore, most National Federations and local Leagues will suspend the guilty persons.



There is a big difference between resigning a winning position because a player doesn't realise it's winning for some reason, and resigning a position which can't be lost through any series of legal moves.

An arbiter is well within their rights to start an investigation in the latter. Are you seriously suggesting that a resignation by a player with a King and Queen vs a lone King should not be investigated? Even if it's just asking the question "why did you resign?"

Pierre Dénommée
16-04-2020, 02:07 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that a resignation by a player with a King and Queen vs a lone King should not be investigated? Even if it's just asking the question "why did you resign?"

In this obvious case, the resignation must be investigated. it could be legal. If I had been playing a game of chess when I was notified that my father is dying, I would have rushed to the hospital as I did regardless of the position on the board.

The behaviour that you have described should be quite rare in Australia because you are using the Glicko rating system. The player's motivation is usually to lower his rating in order to take part in a future event in a lower division, such as U2000 for example. Locally, in most tournaments, a player who have achieved a maximum rating of more then 100 points above a section limit is not allowed to play in this section. For example, if a player had at a certain time a rating above 2100, he will be denied registration in the U2000 section irrespective of his current rating. Some players try to control the growth of their rating with intentional defeats in order to be forever eligible for a section such as U2000. The Quebec chess Federation will usually permanently forbid such players from playing in the section that they are aiming at. One player has forced to play only in the Open Section (with the GM and IM ) for the rest of his life. Under the Glicko rating system, the rating of a player who deliberately loose many game to weak players in order to control his rating should soon be followed by a "?" or "??", thus disqualifying the players from most prices.

The player who resigned King and Queen vs a lone King would have to convince me that his resignation is justified by some special circumstances. Most reasonable special circumstances that I can think off would require the player to also withdraw from the tournament.

There is another possibility that is unheard of outside of the United-States : the person who resigned has been threatened with a handgun. USA has lame firearm restriction laws, in 26 of the 50 United States, people are still allowed to walk the street with a handgun, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States .

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2020, 04:12 PM
The behaviour that you have described should be quite rare in Australia because you are using the Glicko rating system. The player's motivation is usually to lower his rating in order to take part in a future event in a lower division, such as U2000 for example. Locally, in most tournaments, a player who have achieved a maximum rating of more then 100 points above a section limit is not allowed to play in this section. For example, if a player had at a certain time a rating above 2100, he will be denied registration in the U2000 section irrespective of his current rating. Some players try to control the growth of their rating with intentional defeats in order to be forever eligible for a section such as U2000. The Quebec chess Federation will usually permanently forbid such players from playing in the section that they are aiming at. One player has forced to play only in the Open Section (with the GM and IM ) for the rest of his life. Under the Glicko rating system, the rating of a player who deliberately loose many game to weak players in order to control his rating should soon be followed by a "?" or "??", thus disqualifying the players from most prices.

It is somewhat off topic but I should mention the actual reason why this form of ratings sandbagging, notorious in the USA in particular, is pretty much a non-issue in Australia. It has nothing to do with Glicko. I've never heard of an organiser here limiting divisional/ratings prizes to exclude ? or ?? ratings or even "expired" ratings. Rather the reason is that the divisional/ratings prizes in Australia are not large enough to justify the effort. Some US events have ratings prizes in the tens of thousands of dollars - that's just asking for trouble. In Australia the largest such prize is usually for the Australian Reserves (Major), and this year first prize in that was AUD $1200. That's for a 12-day (one rest day) U2150 tournament with over 100 players - even if a player in it was really 2300 strength there is no guarantee they would win the event.

(An expired Glicko rating in Australia, marked with an x, applies to a player with no rated games for a very long time. Expired ratings are still usable for pairings and ratings prize purposes but have little impact on a player's new rating once they become active again.)

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2020, 12:12 PM
No, though in an unrated and low-level junior interschool tournament I had a situation of this kind once. One of the players had mating material and the other had only a king. The player with mating material was frustrated that she could not work out how to win and resigned. I explained that the worst that could happen to her was a draw and told the players to continue.

What would happen in a rated tourney? If neither side can mate by any possible series of legal moves, it's an automatic draw, so the resignation happened after the game was over, so doesn't count (except maybe to Gijssen who thinks an illegal move after mate can lose). But if only the resigning player can't be mated by any possible series of legal moves, can he still lose? If so, that seems to be an anomaly.

Adamski
17-04-2020, 01:03 PM
It is somewhat off topic but I should mention the actual reason why this form of ratings sandbagging, notorious in the USA in particular, is pretty much a non-issue in Australia. It has nothing to do with Glicko. I've never heard of an organiser here limiting divisional/ratings prizes to exclude ? or ?? ratings or even "expired" ratings. Rather the reason is that the divisional/ratings prizes in Australia are not large enough to justify the effort. Some US events have ratings prizes in the tens of thousands of dollars - that's just asking for trouble. In Australia the largest such prize is usually for the Australian Reserves (Major), and this year first prize in that was AUD $1200. That's for a 12-day (one rest day) U2150 tournament with over 100 players - even if a player in it was really 2300 strength there is no guarantee they would win the event.

(An expired Glicko rating in Australia, marked with an x, applies to a player with no rated games for a very long time. Expired ratings are still usable for pairings and ratings prize purposes but have little impact on a player's new rating once they become active again.)
No names, but there us a well known example of a NSW player who intentionally lost games to drop his rating below 1600
It was to be eligible for a U1600 event with decent prize money. Repeat behaviour led to a temporary ban from playing in NSWCA run events. Such action is in my view appropriate.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2020, 01:16 PM
No names, but there us a well known example of a NSW player who intentionally lost games to drop his rating below 1600
It was to be eligible for a U1600 event with decent prize money. Repeat behaviour led to a temporary ban from playing in NSWCA run events. Such action is in my view appropriate.

Thanks; think that's the first time I've ever heard of someone being sanctioned for it in Australia. A while back there was sometimes half-joking speculation that a few players were deliberately hovering just below 2000.

Patrick Byrom
17-04-2020, 06:21 PM
Why would a player who wanted to lower their rating by losing games wait until they had reached the blatantly obvious winning position of K+Q vs K and then resign? Surely they would have made a deliberate losing 'blunder' many moves earlier?

Ian Rout
17-04-2020, 09:31 PM
Why would a player who wanted to lower their rating by losing games wait until they had reached the blatantly obvious winning position of K+Q vs K and then resign? Surely they would have made a deliberate losing 'blunder' many moves earlier?Yes, you would think it would normally be possible to throw a game without getting a winning position first. For that to happen would probably require either serious incompetence or some special circumstance. One that comes to mind is that the player went into the game with a chance of winning something if other results went the right way, but once that possibility evaporated the player moved to Plan B of ditching rating points.

Another possibility is that both players were trying to lose.

But most explanations would really involve fantasy scenarios that you can't imagine happening in real life.

ElevatorEscapee
18-04-2020, 03:24 AM
There was a situation in a tournament as recently as last month, where a player drawn with black didn't feel well enough to play his game, and wanted to withdraw from the tournament, but chose to show up out of respect for his opponent and resign, rather than no-show.

Unfortunately, his opponent was a little late in showing up (it was a morning round).

After the opponent showed up and played his first move as white, the player resigned.

This lead to the arbiter having to review the rules as to whether or not this was a result that should be submitted for rating (it turned out no).

ER
18-04-2020, 05:59 AM
Two cases

1) Witnessed. Some years ago in a club tournament, player A had a clearly winning position but was very short on time!
His junior opponent player B kept on finding moves to avoid getting mated as much as he could. Player A with his flag about to fall resigned and left in disgust!

2) Was part of During a national competition in Sydney, I was playing a micro junior, whom I was beating easily. Then he started crying uncontrollably and
looking very distressed. I approached the arbiter G.B. and told him that I was willing to resign rather than being a part of a major disturbance in the playing hall (*)
G.B. told me to return to my table and keep on playing. At the same time he came over along with the junior's mum and consoled him. (Interfering with play? :D :P) Game concluded with me taking the point!

(*) some looked at me in a "what have you done to the kid" type of look on their faces!

Patrick Byrom
18-04-2020, 12:30 PM
...
2) Was part of During a national competition in Sydney, I was playing a micro junior, whom I was beating easily. Then he started crying uncontrollably and
looking very distressed. I approached the arbiter G.B. and told him that I was willing to resign rather than being a part of a major disturbance in the playing hall (*)
G.B. told me to return to my table and keep on playing. At the same time he came over along with the junior's mum and consoled him. (Interfering with play? :D :P) Game concluded with me taking the point! ... A difficult circumstance that I've had to deal with a few times at junior clubs (not, fortunately, as a player). But wouldn't offering a draw be a better solution than resigning?

ER
18-04-2020, 02:37 PM
… But wouldn't offering a draw be a better solution than resigning?

Absolutely!!! however, being confused and taken aback by the whole situation, I didn't even think of that solution!

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2020, 03:49 PM
With very weak juniors in these kinds of situations it is sometimes important to distinguish between them resigning and incorrectly believing they've been checkmated (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?11055-Incorrectly-agreeing-you-ve-been-mated-is-not-the-same-as-resigning).

2K5/2q5/1R6/3k4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 62

Black confidently plays Qg7-c7+, stops the clock and holds out his hand. White shakes black's hand (pre-COVID-19) and the players report a result of 0-1.

In fact White has an unlosable position because Kxc7 is the only legal move. Unless white has clearly stated that they resign, or unless it is too late to continue the game, the arbiter can rule that the game is still in progress and ask the players to continue. The arbiter has discretion to continue the game even if scoresheets have been signed, but there are limits to this (certainly it shouldn't be done after the next round has been paired, for example).

Immediately interpreting white's actions as a resignation, aside from being unwarranted, would have the perverse impact that white loses because white still has mating material, whereas without the rook ...Qc7+ would immediately end the game (draw by dead position).

ElevatorEscapee
19-04-2020, 12:04 AM
Thanks; think that's the first time I've ever heard of someone being sanctioned for it in Australia. A while back there was sometimes half-joking speculation that a few players were deliberately hovering just below 2000.

lol - if there was anyone seriously doing that, they would have felt like numpties if the national ratings officer decided to add an upwards adjustment to everyone's ratings!

Adamski
19-04-2020, 02:11 PM
That Kevin one above with Q vs R is very funny!

Kevin Bonham
19-04-2020, 05:53 PM
That Kevin one above with Q vs R is very funny!

That's not a real case but a hypothetical one based on having often seen weak juniors not realise that the king can take an unprotected queen. Also, confident opponents often sucker more timid opponents into thinking a move is mate when it isn't.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2021, 07:45 PM
Interesting example of resigning against a bare king from Shaun Press:


I had a curious situation at Street Chess today. After a very up and down game between two relatively new players, one player resigned the game. However, the player who resigned had a K+P on the board, while the other player only had a K. Of course I was only half paying attention, and initially assumed it was the other way round, and commented that the player who resigned could have drawn the ending. It was then pointed out that the player who resigned could not possibly have lost the position, as they were the one with the pawn.

Why did the player resign? Simply because he thought his opponent had played well enough to earnt he full point. But after further discussion (and and an explanation of the rules), the game was recorded as a draw. Now while this was the correct decision from a practical point of view, was it the correct decision from a legal point of view?

Something I have not noticed here before is the definition of "resigns" in the Glossary: "resigns: 5.1.2 Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated." It could be argued that a "resignation" against a lone king does not meet this definition as the player has no possibility of being mated. However (i) I believe the Glossary is not necessarily considered canonical (ii) the trigger in the Laws is " whose opponent declares he resigns.", not "whose opponent resigns".

Patrick Byrom
11-01-2021, 08:20 PM
Interesting example of resigning against a bare king from Shaun Press: ...

Something I have not noticed here before is the definition of "resigns" in the Glossary: "resigns: 5.1.2 Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated." It could be argued that a "resignation" against a lone king does not meet this definition as the player has no possibility of being mated. However (i) I believe the Glossary is not necessarily considered canonical (ii) the trigger in the Laws is " whose opponent declares he resigns.", not "whose opponent resigns".Of course if the player who resigned also had a bare king, the game would have already been a draw (presumably):

5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2021, 08:23 PM
Of course if the player who resigned also had a bare king, the game would have already been a draw (presumably):

5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

Yes. Indeed an arbiter who sees a player "resign" with a dead position on the board (say a player resigns with lone K vs K+B) should generally ignore the resignation because the game was over before the player could resign. Unless it turns out that the KB vs K position has been reached by an illegal move!

Craig_Hall
12-01-2021, 07:38 AM
Something I have not noticed here before is the definition of "resigns" in the Glossary: "resigns: 5.1.2 Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated." It could be argued that a "resignation" against a lone king does not meet this definition as the player has no possibility of being mated. However (i) I believe the Glossary is not necessarily considered canonical (ii) the trigger in the Laws is " whose opponent declares he resigns.", not "whose opponent resigns".

As in the quote from the Laws, "declares he resigns", so an Arbiter would be within their rights to insist on that being the outcome, particular if there is an investigation as here (in that Shaun discussed what happened with the players) and it finds nothing untoward about the outcome (the explanation is not really one that suggests the resignation was collusion/match-fixing so to speak, so it could be deemed acceptable). In terms of player experience, especially for new players, the draw was probably the better outcome though.