Resigning

[Ian Rout]

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]

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]

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? ) 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]

...
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? ) 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]

… 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]

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.

FEN Viewer

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]

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]

That Kevin one above with Q vs R is very funny!

[Kevin Bonham]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.