PDA

View Full Version : When to (and not to!) resign



Kevin Bonham
08-07-2005, 03:16 AM
In the recent Tas Open I won a game from queen for rook down (I swindled and recovered another rook and although I then blundered into a lost position, the swindle had soaked up enough of my opponent's time that I won on time). In the middlegame I had seriously considered resigning and only did not do so because I could give up queen for rook rather than go a piece down with a still terminally cramped position.

This was the second time I had won queen for rook down. In the 1997 Tas Open I was rook up vs Reg Harvey and wondering why he had not resigned as his position had no merit, when I suddenly hung my queen to a backwards knight capture. I considered resigning on the spot but decided that since he had not resigned I should not do so either. I fought back to recover a piece, which put me worse but at least well and truly in the game, and eventually managed to win.

In one of my fairly early tournament games, my opponent, rated about 1400, resigned in a position which I much later found to my surprise had been a forced win for him.

All the above counts against resigning - but equally I think it's artless and annoying that some decent players play on in absolutely hopeless positions such as are seen in beginner games, and then tritely resign when mate is one or two moves away. I believe if you are going to keep your opponent waiting you should at least allow them to end the game by mate. Why give up one move before, it seems to defeat the purpose.

I'd be interested to hear others' opinions on when to resign, stories about premature resignations or times when you were just about to resign but pressed on and won, etc. Or has anyone here actually resigned a won game?

Over to you.

Trent Parker
08-07-2005, 07:35 AM
Well.... It sort of depends with me. If i am peed off that i have blundered i generally play right to mate or when it is clear my opponent knows the mating procedure. I have pulled a rabbit out of a hat on occasions and ended up with a draw from a lost position due to stalemate+rook checks on opponents king....

Garvinator
08-07-2005, 01:28 PM
my answer would be- when i can exactly see how I am going to lose ie i cant stop a passed pawn from queening and I am know that my opponent has seen the same winning method and is displaying it.

antichrist
08-07-2005, 04:41 PM
my answer would be- when i can exactly see how I am going to lose ie i cant stop a passed pawn from queening and I am know that my opponent has seen the same winning method and is displaying it.

I was down and out against a 2000 player in a friendly the other day, many pieces behind and him coming in for the final suffocation and realising I should not be wasting his time.

My kind was isolated and exposed. But played on and got beautiful counter play to win.

I have seen a junior do exactly the same, with one rook wiped out about 20 points of material to win.

Spiny Norman
08-07-2005, 04:50 PM
For me it depends ... on the position, on who my opponent is, how I am feeling, etc.

EGOR
08-07-2005, 05:22 PM
I resign when I can no longer see any possiblities. This can be just before mate or can be when I'm just a pawn down and know (in my own mind) that I have nothing.
A long time ago I was in a game where I was actually a queen up on a much stronger player (800 points difference) and I had him in very bad time trouble. I could not understand why he played on, he confused me even more when he resigned straight after making the time control. When I asked him why, he explained, to my surprise, that for about ten moves he had a mate in one if I made the wrong move, as soon as the mate was no longer a possiblity (which was the same time as he nade the time control), he resigned.

arosar
08-07-2005, 05:22 PM
A mate of mine plays on by simply not moving! What happens is, he has the move but can't avoid being mated on his opponent's next move. What he does is just sit there til his friggin' clock winds down to near zero.

Perhaps this should be in Arbiter's corner, but if I were the opponent, could I simply rock up to the arbiter and say, "look, he can't avoid being mated and is just pissing me off by not resigning. Can you force him to?"

AR

Bereaved
10-07-2005, 12:47 AM
Hi everybody,

I have had similiar discussions as this with any number of people with one player asking me in the capacity of arbiter whether he could suggest that his opponent resign...I also know someone who recently when a piece and more than one pawn up for nothing in an ending where his opponent had only a king put out his hand for his opponent to resign?!

In any case, I do think that this is a variable one, as most of the criteria are material ones, and I am mindful of Capablanca's comments regarding ' a good position ' and that this overrides all. surely we have all played on in positions when we are down on material, but been acutely aware of ways to create something out of nothing, simply by continuing to play. I have beaten people who would have had a very good case for expecting to win themselves simply by playing on... I also know of a local junior who regularly shows his determination to win by winning from hopeless positions; in much the same way, he almost seems to play better in those same difficult positions, a similiar thing was once said about Lasker, that he couldn't play for a win until he was in a difficult position ( perhaps someone has the specific reference?)

I guess eventually come around to the emotional consideration which changes constantly.

Apologies for the analogies, and the additonal questions rather than answers...
all the best, God Bless, Macavity

PS and of course we have all heard the one, ' No one wins by resigning'

antichrist
10-07-2005, 06:26 PM
Hi everybody,

I have had similiar discussions as this with any number of people with one player asking me in the capacity of arbiter whether he could suggest that his opponent resign...I also know someone who recently when a piece and more than one pawn up for nothing in an ending where his opponent had only a king put out his hand for his opponent to resign?!

In any case, I do think that this is a variable one, as most of the criteria are material ones, and I am mindful of Capablanca's comments regarding ' a good position ' and that this overrides all. surely we have all played on in positions when we are down on material, but been acutely aware of ways to create something out of nothing, simply by continuing to play. I have beaten people who would have had a very good case for expecting to win themselves simply by playing on... I also know of a local junior who regularly shows his determination to win by winning from hopeless positions; in much the same way, he almost seems to play better in those same difficult positions, a similiar thing was once said about Lasker, that he couldn't play for a win until he was in a difficult position ( perhaps someone has the specific reference?)

I guess eventually come around to the emotional consideration which changes constantly.

Apologies for the analogies, and the additonal questions rather than answers...
all the best, God Bless, Macavity

PS and of course we have all heard the one, ' No one wins by resigning'

The quote is supposed to be" No one ever improved their position by resigning".

Bereaved
11-07-2005, 04:18 AM
Hi A/C, given that you know the quote better than me, who said it, please?

All the best, God Bless, Macavity

antichrist
11-07-2005, 12:06 PM
Hi A/C, given that you know the quote better than me, who said it, please?

All the best, God Bless, Macavity

forgotten but KB provided the correct quote so when he returns he should help out. But it was some big name. Not JC mind you.

Bereaved
12-07-2005, 06:12 PM
A/C, why give big-name status to your opposition??

But God bless, for the Kudos to JC

Take care, and God Bless, Macavity

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2005, 02:19 PM
Hmmm, the results so far are even more anti-resigning than I expected. I tend to give up rook (but not, you'll note, queen for rook) down if I cannot see any way to create any chances, but if there is still some trick to play for I'll go on. Against a titled player I'll give up piece down if I cannot see any way to get play. It's hard to say how far down I'd need to be against players rated much lower than me (say, the sub-1500s) because I just don't get into the situation of being that heavily down against them in the first place. I've twice resigned with material even in the middlegame against strongish players (1800-2000) because I was positionally crushed to the point that I could not avoid material loss and then would still be positionally crushed after giving up material.

When coaching juniors I advise them to always play until mate against all juniors not rated over 1000, because of the chance of stalemate.

"No one ever won a game by resigning" is attributed to Tartakower.

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2005, 04:02 PM
I was very surprised when an opponent of similar rating (1900s) resigned against me two pawns down on move 20 last night. He had no compensation and no serious attacking chances but the position was open with easily activated heavy pieces on both sides. I would not have even considered giving up in his position - he may have been lost but I still had to work to swap everything off and get the point; I think he was just disgusted at misplaying the opening. I can't afford to give up every time I do that, it happens way too often! :rolleyes:

antichrist
14-07-2005, 05:22 PM
It is easy to work out when to resign, it is when you reach the point that to play on would be worse than resigning. Isn't that enlightening?

Oepty
18-07-2005, 06:20 PM
Well in my last game of competitive chess I apparently resign to early so I am not one to judge. One interesting invident occurred to me in a rapid game when I chose to play on to allow a much stronger player a nice mate which I had blundered into in the early middlegame. I had seen the mate and then moved the rook I had just told myself I shouldn't have. It was a 4 or 5 move mate involving a sacrifice and he had to move his Bc1-h6 to deliver mate, but accidently picked up his bishop on c2, completed the move, realised what he had done, and moved the c1 bishop. I allowed him to do it because I probably should have resigned and he would have been dead lost if I had forced him to play the wrong bishop.
Another time I resigned when my opponent had about 7 seconds to deliver a 4 move mate in an allegro game. It was won of the strangest games I have ever played with game being so locked out of the opening I was just playing moves for the sake of moving while he tried to create something. I then decided to move my queen, because I had not moved it for awhile forgetting it was protecting a knight. He only just managed to break through to win from a piece up.
Scott

b1_
24-07-2005, 01:26 PM
I don't like players who resign too early. Some players get a kick out of resigning early thinking it shows their chess prowess. Others do it thinking it shows their sportmanship or something. Others resign early simply out of spite. Personally, I admire a fighting to the finish attitude, whether I'm the one doing it, or it's my apponent. Fair enough if you're a grandmaster, or are absolutely confident you can alway read the intracacies of a position and never make mistakes, but otherwise, set your Resign-o-Meter to the "never say die" setting, and fight on, even if it's just so you can get some much needed endgame practice in.

And there's no point to resigning in a Blitz game unless it's dead obvious it's over. If there are ever going to be major blunders it'll be in a Blitz game, and it would only be a few seconds of wasted time anyway.

EGOR
01-08-2005, 05:35 PM
It is easy to work out when to resign, it is when you reach the point that to play on would be worse than resigning. Isn't that enlightening?
Very deep. :clap:

WhiteElephant
01-08-2005, 07:09 PM
I don't like players who resign too early. Some players get a kick out of resigning early thinking it shows their chess prowess. Others do it thinking it shows their sportmanship or something. Others resign early simply out of spite. Personally, I admire a fighting to the finish attitude, whether I'm the one doing it, or it's my apponent.

For me, the earlier my opponent resigns, the better :)

While the game is still going, there is always a chance I might lose, even if I am 2 queens and a rook up :owned:

Mischa
01-08-2005, 08:57 PM
Now you sound like James! :)

WhiteElephant
01-08-2005, 09:03 PM
Now you sound like James! :)

Really, that's interesting. James seems to have plenty of confidence and I imagine would have no problems finishing off won games. I, on the other hand, tend to relax when I am winning and have let a few opponents off the hook for no explicable reason.

Mischa
01-08-2005, 09:05 PM
sounding more and more like him. But from a lost position?
Herr schwindler.

WhiteElephant
01-08-2005, 09:22 PM
You could probably summarise my play as follows:

I don't believe in opening preparation so I'll play a different random opening each game.

1) Usually I reach the middlgame with a slightly inferior position in which case I put my head down and start looking for tactics and swindles.

2) If, by some miracle, I have an advantage out of the opening, I start looking out the window, chatting to onlookers and going for walks, in which case, I inevitably revert to 1) above.

Mischa
01-08-2005, 09:25 PM
George!!! you are his long lost twin!!!

antichrist
01-08-2005, 10:34 PM
You could probably summarise my play as follows:

I don't believe in opening preparation so I'll play a different random opening each game.

1) Usually I reach the middlgame with a slightly inferior position in which case I put my head down and start looking for tactics and swindles.

2) If, by some miracle, I have an advantage out of the opening, I start looking out the window, chatting to onlookers and going for walks, in which case, I inevitably revert to 1) above.

Do you have the same attitude to girls when you have them on the ropes?

Dozy
21-08-2005, 02:35 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]
I'd be interested to hear others' opinions on when to resign, stories about premature resignations or times when you were just about to resign but pressed on and won, etc. QUOTE]

4r1k1/1R1Q4/2P2p2/2P3pp/4qn2/8/6PP/5B1K b - - 0 37
This position occured in game between Igor Bjelobrk (white) and Bruce Watson in the New Zealand Zonal in January. Watson, to play, resigned. He missed 37...Qxg2+ 38. Bxg2 Re1+ 39. Bf1 Rxf1 mate

pballard
21-08-2005, 07:08 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]
I'd be interested to hear others' opinions on when to resign, stories about premature resignations or times when you were just about to resign but pressed on and won, etc. QUOTE]

4r1k1/1R1Q4/2P2p2/2P3pp/4qn2/8/6PP/5B1K b - - 0 37
This position occured in game between Igor Bjelobrk (white) and Bruce Watson in the New Zealand Zonal in January. Watson, to play, resigned. He missed 37...Qxg2+ 38. Bxg2 Re1+ 39. Bf1 Rxf1 mate

Ouch. I guess it's just another missed combination, but it must be particularly painful when the move one plays instead of the brilliancy is "Resigns".

Igor_Bjelobrk
01-09-2005, 08:11 PM
This position never actually took place. It was just a possible continuation in my game that came up on the digital board during analysis. I played Bc4+ which forces mate, instead of Qd7

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2005, 12:33 AM
In one of my fairly early tournament games, my opponent, rated about 1400, resigned in a position which I much later found to my surprise had been a forced win for him.

Actually looking at this one again, it looks like I could still have drawn. Tricky rook ending. Here it is:

8/1p6/1ppk1PKp/6p1/5r2/1PP5/1P6/4R3 b - - 0 44

I had just played 44.f6 and my opponent figured that he couldn't stop my f-pawn and resigned. In fact if I just ram the pawn home I lose, eg 44..g4 45.f7 (45.Kxh6 Rxf6+ 46.Kg5 Rf2 -+) g3 46.Kg7 h5 47.f8Q+ Rxf8 48.Kxf8 h4 49.Rg1 Ke5 -+. However it looks like I could still have drawn after 44...g4 45.Re3! h5 46.f7 h4 47.Re4!

(I also once resigned a won game, but that was in blitz. Shocked that my opponent had forced mate in 2 when I thought I was totally winning, I rolled my king over instead of noticing that his last move had been illegal. :rolleyes: )

pax
02-09-2005, 09:26 AM
I wouldn't resign a piece (or exchange) down in the middlegame. Some of my best attacking chess has come when down in material, and 'forced' to attack my opponent's king.

On the other hand, I think dragging it out until checkmate is tedious if the win is obvious and the opponent is not a mug.

I would probably resign if a clear rook down, and no compensation (and no opportunity for a sensational mating attack or perpetual).

pax
02-09-2005, 12:03 PM
I wouldn't resign a piece (or exchange) down in the middlegame. Some of my best attacking chess has come when down in material, and 'forced' to attack my opponent's king.

On the other hand, I think dragging it out until checkmate is tedious if the win is obvious and the opponent is not a mug.

I would probably resign if a clear rook down, and no compensation (and no opportunity for a sensational mating attack or perpetual).

Spiny Norman
02-09-2005, 12:24 PM
I played a bad opening last night and unsoundly sacrificed a pawn ... which led to another, etc etc ... eventually I was a piece and some pawns down and trying to swindle a non-losing result ... but kept playing for a while "just in case". I'll post the game in another thread over the weekend and will put a pointer to it here. I believe it was worthwhile continuing, if only for the challenge of continuing to try to create winning chances in an obviously lost game given the "normal course of events". But I would never drag out a game unnecessarily just to be vindictive.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2005, 04:39 PM
I was momentarily surprised last night when my opponent (who was Black and to move) resigned here:

8/8/5Rk1/7p/1q6/5RPP/5PK1/8 b - - 0 41

I did not immediately appreciate that at worst I had a forced win of his remaining pawn on the square where it stands after the white moves Rf7+, R3f4, h4, R7f5, Rg5, Rff5 and that therefore, with my king in a perfect anti-perpetual check fortress, the game really is as good as over.

antichrist
09-09-2005, 03:01 PM
One missing option is one pieces are developed more and better - all material being of equal value. This can even happen after 10 moves.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2005, 03:46 PM
One missing option is one pieces are developed more and better - all material being of equal value. This can even happen after 10 moves.

I would never resign because of that. Hardly any player would, because a huge lead in development isn't necessarily an easily won game. For instance the attack might fizzle out, or the attacker might play an unsound sacrifice.

A couple of times I've been so badly positionally crushed that I've resigned when no material down because material loss was inevitable and my position would still be hopeless even after that.

2rk4/pq3p2/2p1rP1p/P1RpB1p1/1pbP4/4R2P/1P3PP1/3Q2K1 b - - 0 30

White (Lucas) had just played 30.Qa4-d1! 1-0.

8/pp3k1p/6p1/8/P1p2p1P/1nPr1P2/1P1PK3/1RB5 w - - 0 36

I had just played 35.h3-h4 to allow Black (M Hornung) to put me into zugzwang with 35...Ke8-f7 0-1.

antichrist
09-09-2005, 03:55 PM
KB
I would never resign because of that. Hardly any player would, because a huge lead in development isn't necessarily an easily won game. For instance the attack might fizzle out, or the attacker might play an unsound sacrifice.

A couple of times I've been so badly positionally crushed that I've resigned when no material down because material loss was inevitable and my position would still be hopeless even after that. end of quote

A/C
without looking at the boards aren't these two paras contradictory?

antichrist
09-09-2005, 03:57 PM
When being offered a phone loss by Kasparov

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2005, 04:03 PM
without looking at the boards aren't these two paras contradictory?

No, because in both cases I resigned because the superiority in piece placement was such that it was going to cause a definite and obvious loss of material. In the opening just because one player has a strong centre and four pieces out and a safely castled king while the other is messing around does not mean that the better-developed player will always easily win - unless they are very very good.

Rincewind
09-09-2005, 04:16 PM
I agree with Kevin. I would never even consider resigning on move 10 (unless there was a material loss or what I believed to be unavoidable material loss) no matter how bad the "positional" disadvantage. Positional (dis)advantages are transitory and with good play by the defender and/or sloppy play by the attacker they can be wiggled out of if you are up to the pressure.

In fact one tactic is to deliberately play into stodgy but defendible positions and certain opponents will feel obliged to sacrifice a pawn or two to generate an attack against your "uncoordinated" forces. After the attack is repelled you can enjoy an easy endgame. Of course this plan does not suit everyone's temperament, nor will all opponents be suckered into the unsound sacrifice but I can attest to its success on more than one occasion.

...

However, I did have an opponent of mine this year resign on me at around move 10 in a materially equal position. I was flabbergasted and tried to talk him out of resigning but his heart wasn't in it. Quite a bizarre situation. If I think of it, I'll post the game tonight.

antichrist
09-09-2005, 04:19 PM
Well there you are, you have a perpentrator like myself thinking they should resign, and some victims thinking likewise - so it should have been an option.

Whenever you require help with polls....

Rincewind
09-09-2005, 04:24 PM
Well there you are, you have a perpentrator like myself thinking they should resign, and some victims thinking likewise - so it should have been an option.

Resigning is always an option but you don;t win too many games with it.

This guy was not a rank-beginner but was inexperienced in tournament play. I think he talked himself into a negative mindset and so lost the battle without me having to really lift a finger.

Spiny Norman
09-09-2005, 05:03 PM
This guy was not a rank-beginner but was inexperienced in tournament play.
I played a 'newbie' last night. Apart from the fact that he was quite strong, it was quite funny because he'd never played under 'touch/move' conditions. So the first time he grabbed a piece, hesitated, then moved another, I allowed him to make the move then gently explained the way things should be done.

Several moves later he picked up a piece, put it down ... then exclaimed loudly "Oh, S**T, I have to move it now don't I?". This happened 2 or 3 more times, until I finally quietly suggested to him to sit on his hands until he's ready to move! ;)

antichrist
09-09-2005, 05:08 PM
I played a 'newbie' last night. Apart from the fact that he was quite strong, it was quite funny because he'd never played under 'touch/move' conditions. So the first time he grabbed a piece, hesitated, then moved another, I allowed him to make the move then gently explained the way things should be done.

Several moves later he picked up a piece, put it down ... then exclaimed loudly "Oh, S**T, I have to move it now don't I?". This happened 2 or 3 more times, until I finally quietly suggested to him to sit on his hands until he's ready to move! ;)

I have heard that God did exactly the same with a few of his disasters.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2005, 05:14 PM
This guy was not a rank-beginner but was inexperienced in tournament play. I think he talked himself into a negative mindset and so lost the battle without me having to really lift a finger.

I think this is fairly common. I sometimes have great trouble convincing weaker opponents in the post-mortem that they were actually in the game.

Rincewind
09-09-2005, 05:18 PM
However, I did have an opponent of mine this year resign on me at around move 10 in a materially equal position. I was flabbergasted and tried to talk him out of resigning but his heart wasn't in it. Quite a bizarre situation. If I think of it, I'll post the game tonight.

[Date "2005.03.08"]
[White "Cox, Barry"]
[Black "Opponent"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A17"]

1.Nf3 b6 2.g3 Bb7 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.c4 e6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.d4 Bb4 7.O-O Bxc3 8.bxc3
d5 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.c4 Nf6 11.Ba3 Ne7 12.Qc2 O-O 13.Rfe1 Re8 14.e4 1-0

2005 has not been a successful year for my chess in general but this was one of my easier points. It would be interesting to see how many black's have resigned immediately after the move e4 by white.

Dozy
12-09-2005, 12:47 PM
Yogi Berra was the guy who said, "It isn't over till it's over." If he'd been talking about chess instead of baseball he may well have had something like this position in mind. It's attributed to Alekhine who was supposed to have been playing a simul at the time.

Who knows? The story might even be true.

In the diagrammed position black, with the move but faced with Qh8#, resigned.

6k1/5pp1/5b2/5N1Q/3r4/1P6/P1Pq4/1K5R b - - 0 41

Alekhine offered to reverse the board and continue. His opponent agreed and the game continued, 1 ...Rh4, 2. Nxh4 Qc3. Once again faced with the threat of mate on the move the opponent resigned. Once again Alekhine offered to reverse the board. The game concluded 3.Qh8+ Kxh8, 4. Ng6+ Kg8, 5. Rh8#.

Garrett
14-09-2006, 05:39 PM
Hi everyone

Just wondering when people think it is proper to resign. It was noticed recently that I resigned a position that a lot of other people may have played on in. The position was one of a double rook ending, my position had a few more weaknesses than the opponents, my rooks were passively defending pawns, and I was a pawn down. Is it unusual to resign here ? I was playing against a peer, not someone 3 rating divisions below me.

I have seen some (most juniors) play on a couple of queens down. A couple of months ago a player played on against me a queen and a rook down and no realistic chance of jagging a stalemate. I look at that bloke differently now.

I can remember when I was a junior playing against english GM Ray Keene in a simul. We all lost but Ray paid tribute to John Myers (a childhood hero of mine) by saying 'he was the only one who knew when to resign'. I would like to think I now know when to resign too.

I was wondering what other chesschatters think ?

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2006, 06:54 PM
Hi everyone

Hi George, I merged your post with the existing thread on this subject (which was several pages back).


It was noticed recently that I resigned a position that a lot of other people may have played on in. The position was one of a double rook ending, my position had a few more weaknesses than the opponents, my rooks were passively defending pawns, and I was a pawn down. Is it unusual to resign here ? I was playing against a peer, not someone 3 rating divisions below me.

I just about never resign double rook endings unless the opponent has a clear and immediate forced mate or promotion. They are full of perpetual check and stalemate swindle chances even when your position seems "dead lost". Generally if you find yourself in a lost position like the one you describe forget the pawns; give up as many as the other side wants if there is a way to activate your rooks and try to get a perpetual.

Garrett
14-09-2006, 06:58 PM
Hi George, I merged your post with the existing thread on this subject (which was several pages back).



I just about never resign double rook endings unless the opponent has a clear and immediate forced mate or promotion. They are full of perpetual check and stalemate swindle chances even when your position seems "dead lost". Generally if you find yourself in a lost position like the one you describe forget the pawns; give up as many as the other side wants if there is a way to activate your rooks and try to get a perpetual.
Thanks Kevin, I didn't remember your thread. I respect your view too. Cheers George

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2006, 07:10 PM
Thanks Kevin, I didn't remember your thread. I respect your view too. Cheers George

It was over a year old so was well back in the list before you joined. Luckily here if someone starts a thread and that thread already exists we can just run the two together so everyone can see all the previous discussion.

fianchetto
14-09-2006, 07:16 PM
Yogi Berra was the guy who said, "It isn't over till it's over."
Oh yeah... I only resign if I can't win.

MichaelBaron
14-09-2006, 11:39 PM
Its good to fight on while there is still life in the position. But once it gets to the point when the outcome of the game becomes obvious, it is simply impolite to play on. There is a certain Australian IM who played against me many pieces down a number of times. In one particular instance i believe he was a queen, rook and a bishop down but neverthless he played on...

Axiom
15-09-2006, 12:35 AM
Its good to fight on while there is still life in the position. But once it gets to the point when the outcome of the game becomes obvious, it is simply impolite to play on. There is a certain Australian IM who played against me many pieces down a number of times. In one particular instance i believe he was a queen, rook and a bishop down but neverthless he played on...
...but HE is a very strong endgame player! :)

likesforests
15-09-2006, 11:49 AM
I ask, is the win obvious to both of us? Sometimes I play on a piece down, sometimes I resign a pawn down--it depends on the position.

In 2 out of my last 10 games I resigned because:

1. Game #1: My opponent had an obvious mate-in-four.
2. Game #2: K+P vs K, and my opponent knew the endgame.

Today, I almost resigned a bishop down, but played on and won!

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2006, 12:43 PM
In the last few weeks I have seen a few resignations by weaker players who were dead lost on the board but with significant chances of a draw (or even if the opponent was really uncompromising a win) on time. Whether they simply did not consider the clock as an option, or whether they considered it but didn't feel like playing on for honour reasons, I don't know.

In the weekender last week I almost made a meal of a completely won game. Alastair Dyer played on against me queen and pawn for rook down for ages in the endgame. I was wondering why on earth he hadn't resigned ... then almost fell into a stalemate trap! (58...b1?? 59.Rxb1! would have been even more embarrassing than all the floundering around in the rest of the ending!)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qc7 7.Nf3 b6 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Bd3 Ba4 10.Bf4 Nd7 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Rc1 c4 13.Be2 Ne7 14.Bg3 0-0 15.Nh4 Qd8 16.f4 f5 17.exf6?! Nxf6 18.Re1 Ne4 19.Bg4 Nf5 20.Nxf5 exf5 21.Bf3 Nxc3 22.Qd2 Ne4 23.Qe2 Re8 24.c3?? Nxg3 25.Qxe8+ Bxe8 (He missed the backwards bishop capture) 26.hxg3 Bf7 27.Re5 Qd7 28.Rce1 Re8 29.Kf2 Rxe5 30.Rxe5 g6 31.Kg1 Qb5 32.Kh2 Qb3 33.Bxd5 Bxd5 34.Rxd5 Qxc3 35.Rd8+ Kg7 36.d5 Qd3 37.d6 c3 38.d7 c2 39.Rc8 Qxd7 40.Rxc2 Qa4 41.Rc7+ Kh6 42.Rc3 b5 43.Kh3 a5 44.Kh4 Qd4 45.Rc8 g5+? (Missing mate in two by ...Qd1) 46.Kh3 g4+ 47.Kh2 b4 48.axb4 axb4 49.Rc6+ Kg7 50.Rc7+ Kf6 51.Rb7 Qc3 52.Rxh7 b3 53.Rb7 b2 54.Rb5 Qc2 55.Rb6+ Ke7 56.Rb7+ Kd6 57.Rb6+ Kc7 58.Rb4 Qc3 (In the nick of time I realise that if I promote he captures, which makes it stalemate if I take the rook and very hard work if I don't) 59.Rb5 Qh8+ 60.Kg1 Kc6 61.Rb3 Kc5 62.Rb7 Kc4 63.Rc7+ Kb3 64.Rb7+ Kc2 65.Rc7+ Qc3 66.Rxc3+ Kxc3 67.Kh2 Kd2 68.Kg1 b1=Q+ 69.Kh2 Qb3 70.Kg1 Ke2 71.Kh2 Kf2 72.Kh1 Qb8 0-1

Bill Gletsos
15-09-2006, 01:19 PM
Interestingly that board stops at move Kg1 and wont progress to the b1Q+ move.

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2006, 01:25 PM
Yes, in this PGN viewer b1Q doesn't work and has to be changed manually to b1=Q. I often forget. Fixed now.

MichaelBaron
15-09-2006, 06:04 PM
...but HE is a very strong endgame player! :)

If you are a queen, rook and a piece down..being a strong endgame player does not help. I saw him playing like that against other IMs and even GMs

Axiom
15-09-2006, 06:27 PM
If you are a queen, rook and a piece down..being a strong endgame player does not help. I saw him playing like that against other IMs and even GMs
Maybe he likes endgames so much, he is willing to enter them ,even if his opponent is still in the opening or middle game! ;)

MichaelBaron
15-09-2006, 08:19 PM
Maybe he likes endgames so much, he is willing to enter them ,even if his opponent is still in the opening or middle game! ;)
lol:D

antichrist
16-09-2006, 12:58 PM
I was behind a few pieces and did about 4 more saks if accepted would be a draw stalemate or something. The opposition's mate let out a laugh on the last sak which I took as a sign to his mate that something was up - I abused the spectator for five minutes after his mate woke up to it. They did not show up again for months. If an important game think of everything and anything.

Vlad
18-09-2006, 09:13 AM
Not resigning until you are obviously lost is the right strategy. What I find amusing is that some titled players become incredibly obsessed when you do not resign (They think not resigning is fine for them though.:)). When I played my first gm in the Doerbel 2001, that was Djuric, I had an equal position until some point where I blundered a pawn. Then the position quickly started getting worse. At some point I had a rook for a queen and all pawns on one side. It was a lost position but I still had very little drawing chances (mostly if the opponent blunders). Finally when he exchanged the queen for the rook and got obviously winning pawn ending I resigned.

By that time he was just fuming. Some other guy was watching a game on the next table standing about half a meter close to Djuric (I suspect it was Arosar, I could be wrong though.). The gm pushed him away and cried loudly for a few minutes.:) Then after the game he told people from his community that I am a very bad guy. I know that because some of them approached me afterwards asking what happened.

Well, I am possibly a bad guy, but probably not because I did not resign early.:)

It is also a very common feature on the ICC. Many title players believe they have a right that others resign immediately.:)

JonasMuller
25-09-2006, 09:02 AM
Not resigning until you are obviously lost is the right strategy. What I find amusing is that some titled players become incredibly obsessed when you do not resign (They think not resigning is fine for them though.:)). When I played my first gm in the Doerbel 2001, that was Djuric, I had an equal position until some point where I blundered a pawn. Then the position quickly started getting worse. At some point I had a rook for a queen and all pawns on one side. It was a lost position but I still had very little drawing chances (mostly if the opponent blunders). Finally when he exchanged the queen for the rook and got obviously winning pawn ending I resigned.

By that time he was just fuming. Some other guy was watching a game on the next table standing about half a meter close to Djuric (I suspect it was Arosar, I could be wrong though.). The gm pushed him away and cried loudly for a few minutes.:) Then after the game he told people from his community that I am a very bad guy. I know that because some of them approached me afterwards asking what happened.

Well, I am possibly a bad guy, but probably not because I did not resign early.:)

It is also a very common feature on the ICC. Many title players believe they have a right that others resign immediately.:)

lol, u have the right to resign whenever u want. It is not against the rules of chess.

antichrist
25-09-2006, 06:10 PM
lol, u have the right to resign whenever u want. It is not against the rules of chess.

But if the board already shows a mate to your opponent and he is claiming it while you may want your resignation before he makes that move well who wins?

qpawn
03-10-2006, 08:53 PM
In correspondence chess I believe that you should always resign at any level if you are a clear piece behind for no compensation.

In OTB chess it's a bit more complicated. I played on 3 times in the Vic open in positions where I might have resigned. In one I was a pawn behind for no compensation whatsoever. But I got my opponent to do about 30 moves of hackwork to force a promotion and then I resigned. In another one I had a positionally lost endgame [ conceding absolute seventh and bishop stuck behind a pawn] and played on for another 10 moves to see if my opponent could finish it off; when he was about to get a new queen I resigned. But in the last game of teh event I was in a worse position still. I was down a clear exchange [ rook for knight] with no compensation and he had doubled rooks on my seventh. But I thought that he may be a bit tired in the final round and about 20 more moves followed in which my position remained ...disastrous... I felt some optimism taht I wasn't getting any worse..:lol:

But then I saw something. If I pushed my pawn I created the possibility for him to check and I could respond by a discovered check when my king uncovered my rook and I would...win a rook...:) For someone of an entirely honest bent who couldn't bluff in poker for all the tea in China I somehow managed to keep a straight face and pushed teh pawn like so. He fell for it :owned: I didn't know whether to feel like a chessplayer or some sort of sadist. Even then with me being the exchange up there werea few pitafalls to avoid but IU won soonafter. So, I seemed to get one point out of three "resignable" positions. I haven't got the score of teh game on me but, believe me, my position was REALLY bad when I got teh swindle.

JonasMuller
03-10-2006, 09:58 PM
But if the board already shows a mate to your opponent and he is claiming it while you may want your resignation before he makes that move well who wins?

what???? what are you trying to say?

qpawn
03-10-2006, 10:59 PM
Jonas. Take no notice of Anti Christ's devilish propaganda. Its infernal, diabolical nature is designed to confuse you.

Rincewind
03-10-2006, 11:03 PM
what???? what are you trying to say?

I think Peter was thinking of the following scenario:

You're opponent has the move and there is a mate in 1. You notice it before he makes his move but after you clock.

Now lets say you want to resign to prevent the indignity of being mated on the board but your opponent wants to play the mating move for the dignity of mating you.

Which counts? Can you resign while you do not have the move?
_________

5.1 (b) states, "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game."

Therefore I would say if you can blurt out a declaration of resignation before the opponent makes his move, then the resignation stands and the indignity of checkmate is prevented. Of course sensibe people don't worry about such trivialities.

Bereaved
04-10-2006, 12:16 AM
Hello everyone,

Here is a game where I refused to write down the word "resigns" on the score sheet. It is fair enough to play on to see whether your opponent can give mate, but very wrong to resign one move away.

Event: Melbourne Chess Club
Site: ?
Date: 2004
White: A, Nother
Black: Macavity
Result: 0-1
ECO: A43
[
1. d4 c5 2. e3 Nf6 3. f4 e6 4. Bd3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. c3 Qc7 8. Nbd2
cxd4 9. exd4 Qxf4 10. Ne4 Qc7 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+ Bxg5 14.
Qh5+ Kg8 15. Bxg5 Qa5 16. Rf3 f6 17. Raf1 Ne7 18. b4 Qd5 19. g4 d6 20. c4 Qxd4+
21. Be3 Qe5 22. g5 Bd7 23. Rh3 Qe4 24. gxf6 Qg6+ 25. Qxg6 Nxg6 26. Rg3 Kf7 27.
fxg7+ Kxg7 28. Rd1 Rad8 29. Rxd6 Bc8 30. Rxd8 Rxd8 31. h4 Kh7 32. h5 Ne7 33.
Bxa7 Rd1+ 34. Kh2 Rd2+ 35. Rg2 Rxg2+ 36. Kxg2 Nc6 37. Bc5 Ne5 38. Bf8 Nxc4 39.
Kf3 Bd7 40. Ke4 Bc6+ 41. Kd4 Bd5 42. a4 Nb6 43. a5 Nd7 44. Bd6 Kh6 45. b5 Kxh5
46. a6 bxa6 47. bxa6 Kg4 48. a7 Kf3 49. Bb8 Ke2 50. Kc3 Ke3 51. Kb4 Kd4 52. Kb5
e5 53. Ka6 e4 54. Bf4 e3 55. Bxe3+ Kxe3 56. Ka5 Kd4 57. Kb5 Bb7 58. Kb4 Kd5 59.
Kb5 Kd6 60. Ka4 Kc6 61. Ka5 Kc5 62. Ka4 Kb6 63. a8=N+ Bxa8 64. Kb4 Bd5 65. Kc3
Kc5 66. Kd3 Ne5+ 67. Kc3 Bf3 68. Kc2 Kd4 69. Kb3 Nd3 70. Kc2 Nc5 71. Kd2 Nb3+
72. Kc2 Kc4 73. Kb2 Be4 74. Ka3 Bb1 75. Kb2 Bd3 76. Ka3 Kc3 77. Ka4 Bc4 78. Ka3
Na5 79. Ka4 Nc6 80. Ka3 Bb5 81. Ka2 Nb4+ 82. Ka3 Nc2+ 83. Ka2 Bc4+ 84. Kb1 Bb3
85. Kc1 Ba2 86. Kd1 Nd4 87. Ke1 Kd3 88. Kf2 Ne2 89. Kf3 Be6 90. Kf2 Bd5 91. Kf1
Ke3 92. Ke1 Bb3 93. Kf1 Nf4 94. Ke1 Ng2+ 95. Kf1 Kf3 96. Kg1 Kg3 97. Kf1 Bc4+
98. Kg1 Nf4 99. Kh1 Be2 100. Kg1 Nh3+ 101. Kh1 Bf3# 0-1

My opponent did not actually make move 101, nor write it on his score sheet, but I did on mine.

History shall see whether I ever get corrected on this.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Bereaved
04-10-2006, 12:39 AM
hello, again, everyone,

in contrast I offer these two games:

Event: Melbourne Chess Club
Site: ?
Date: 2003
Round:
White: Else, Someone
Black: Macavity
Result: 0-1
ECO: B70

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Bg5 Bg7 7. Qd2 h6 $6 (
7... Nc6 $11) (7... O-O 8. O-O-O Nc6 9. Nb3 Be6 10. Bh6 Bxh6 11. Qxh6 Bxb3 12.
axb3 Qb6 13. f3 Rfc8 14. Bd3 Ne5 15. Rhe1 Rc7 16. h3 Rac8 17. f4 Nxd3+ 18. Rxd3
Qf2 19. Re2 Qf1+ 20. Rd1 Qxe2 $5 21. Nxe2 Rxc2+ 22. Kb1 Rxe2 23. e5 dxe5 24.
fxe5 Rxe5 25. Rc1 Rd8 $17 (25... Rec5 26. Rxc5 Rxc5 27. Qe3 Rc7 28. Qxa7 Kg7
29. Qa5 Rd7 30. g4 h6 31. Kc2 e6 32. Qe5 Rd5 33. Qe3 g5 34. Kc3 b5 35. b4 Nd7
36. Qe4 Ne5 37. b3 Nd3 38. Kc2 Nf4 39. h4 f5 40. gxf5 Rxf5 41. hxg5 hxg5 42.
Kd2 g4 43. Qd4+ Kg6 44. Qh8 Rd5+ 45. Ke3 Kg5 46. Qg8+ Ng6 47. Kf2 Rd3 48. Qxe6
g3+ 49. Ke1 g2 50. Qb6 Nf4 51. Qa7 Rxb3 (51... Rf3 52. Kd2 Rf1 53. Qe7+ Kg4 54.
Qg7+ Kh4 55. Qf6+ Kg3 56. Qg7+ Kh2 57. Qh8+ Nh3 58. Qe5+ Rf4 59. Qxb5 g1=Q 60.
Qe5 Qg2+ 61. Kc1 Qg3 62. Qb2+ Rf2 63. Kb1 Nf4 64. Qh8+ Kg2 65. Qb2 Qd3+ 66. Ka1
Qd1+ 67. Ka2 Rxb2+ 68. Kxb2 Qd2+ 69. Ka3 Nd3 70. Ka4 Qxb4#) 52. Kf2 Rb2+ 53.
Kf3 Rxb4)) 8. Bh4 O-O 9. Be2 g5 10. Bg3 Nc6 11. Nb3 Be6 12. O-O a6 13. f4 g4
14. Bf2 b5 15. Bd3 Bc4 16. Nd4 Nxd4 17. Bxd4 e5 18. Be3 Bxd3 19. cxd3 exf4 20.
Rxf4 h5 21. Rf5 b4 22. Ne2 d5 23. e5 Nd7 24. d4 f6 25. e6 Nb6 26. Rxh5 Nc4 27.
Qd3 f5 28. Bf2 (28. b3 $16 Nd6 29. Re1 Ne4 30. Nf4 Qd6 31. Bd2 Rae8 $13) (28.
Bg5 Qe8 29. Nf4 Nxb2 30. Qd2 Nc4 31. Qf2 Nd6 32. e7 Rf7 33. Ne6 Rxe7 34. Bxe7
Qxe7 35. Re1 $14) 28... Nd6 29. Ng3 Qf6 30. Re1 Rae8 31. Qb3 (31. Qxa6 $6 Rxe6
32. Rxe6 Qxe6 33. Nxf5 Rxf5 34. Rxf5 Qxf5 35. Qxd6 Qb1+ 36. Be1 Qxe1#) (31. e7
Rxe7 (31... Rf7 32. Qxa6 f4 33. Rxd5 fxg3 34. Bxg3 Ne4 35. Qxf6 Nxf6 36. Rb5
Rfxe7 $11) 32. Rxe7 Qxe7 33. Nxf5 Qf7 $17) 31... f4 32. Ne2 (32. Nf1 g3 (32...
Ne4 33. Rxd5 Nxf2 34. Re2 Nd3 35. e7 Nc1 36. exf8=Q+ Rxf8 37. Qc4 Nxe2+ 38.
Qxe2 f3 39. gxf3 gxf3 40. Qe4 Qc6 41. h4 a5 42. b3 f2+ 43. Kh2) 33. hxg3 fxg3
34. Bxg3 Qxd4+ 35. Ne3 Nf5 $44) (32. e7 Rf7) 32... Qxe6 33. Rxd5 (33. Nxf4 $4
Qxe1+ 34. Bxe1 Bxd4+ 35. Kf1 (35. Bf2 Re1#) (35. Kh1 Rxe1#) 35... Rxf4+ 36. Qf3
(36. Bf2 Rxf2+ 37. Kg1 Re1#) 36... gxf3 $19) 33... Ne4 34. Rd7 $4 (34. Nc1 $142
$8 $16) 34... Qxb3 $19 35. axb3 Nxf2 36. Kxf2 f3 37. gxf3 $8 (37. Nf4 $2 Rxe1
38. Kxe1 Rxf4 $19) (37. Ng3 $4 fxg2+ 38. Kxg2 Rxe1 $19) 37... Rxf3+ 38. Kg2
Rxb3 39. Kf1 Rxb2 40. Ng3 Rxe1+ 41. Kxe1 Rxh2 42. Nf5 Bf8 43. Rb7 Rh5 (43... a5
44. d5 (44. Ne3 g3 45. Rb6 Kf7 46. Rb7+ Ke6 47. Rb8 Bd6 48. Rg8 Bf4 49. Nf1 Rc2
50. Nxg3 Rg2 51. d5+ Kf7 52. Rg7+ Kxg7 53. Nh5+ Kf7 54. Nxf4 b3 55. Nxg2 b2 56.
Kd2 b1=Q 57. Ne3 Qe4 58. d6 Qd4+ 59. Ke2 Qxd6 60. Nc4 Qa6 61. Kd3 a4 62. Kc3 a3
63. Nxa3 Qxa3+ 64. Kd4 Ke6 65. Ke4 Qc3 66. Kf4 Qd3 67. Kg5 Qg3+ 68. Kh5 Kf6 69.
Kh6 Qh2#) 44... Rh5 45. Ng3 (45. Ne3 Re5 46. Kf2 (46. Ke2 Bh6 47. Kf1 Rxe3) (
46. Kd2 Bh6) 46... Bc5) 45... Rxd5) 44. Ne3 Rg5 45. Kf1 a5 46. Nc2 Rf5+ 47. Kg2
Rf3 48. d5 (48. Ne1 Rb3 49. Kf1 a4 50. Ke2 a3 51. Rb5 a2 52. Ra5 Rb2+ 53. Kd3
b3 54. Kc3 Rb1 55. Nd3 g3 56. Nf4 Bg7 57. Ra7 a1=Q+ 58. Rxa1 Rxa1 59. Kxb3 Rf1
60. Ng2 Rf2 61. Ne1 Re2 62. Nd3 g2 63. Kc4 g1=Q 64. Ne5 Qc1+ 65. Kd5 Bxe5 66.
dxe5 Qd1+ 67. Ke6 Rf2 68. Ke7 Rf7+ 69. Ke6 Qd7#) 48... Rd3 49. Rb5 (49. Kf1
Rxd5 50. Ne3 Rg5 51. Ra7 b3 52. Nc4 Rb5 53. Ke2 b2 54. Nd2 g3 55. Kf3 Rd5 56.
Nb1 Rd1 57. Rxa5 Rxb1 58. Rb5 Rf1+ 59. Kxg3 b1=Q 60. Rxb1 Rxb1 61. Kf4 Re1 62.
Kg4 Rf1 63. Kg3 Bc5 64. Kg2 Rf2+ 65. Kg3 Be3 66. Kg4 Rf4+ 67. Kh3 Kf7 68. Kg2
Kg6 69. Kh2 Kh5 70. Kh3 Kg5 71. Kg2 Bf2 (71... Rf2+ 72. Kg3 Bd4 73. Kh3 Kf4 74.
Kh4 Rh2#) 72. Kf1 Bb6+) (49. Rd7 Rd2+ 50. Kg3 Rxc2 51. Kxg4 b3 52. Rb7 b2 53.
d6 Bxd6 54. Kf3 Bb4 55. Rb8+ Kf7 56. Rb7+ Ke6 57. Rb6+ Kd5 58. Rb5+ Kc4 59. Rb8
b1=Q 60. Rc8+ Bc5 61. Rxc5+ Kxc5 62. Ke3 Qf1 63. Ke4 Re2+ 64. Kd3 Qf3#) 49...
Rd2+ (49... Rd2+ 50. Kg3 Rxc2 51. Rxa5 b3 52. Ra1 (52. Rb5 b2 53. Rb8 Kf7 $19
54. Rxb2 Rxb2 55. Kxg4 Rd2 56. Kf4 Rxd5 57. Kf3 Rd4 58. Ke3 Bg7 59. Kf3 Ke6 60.
Ke2 Kf5 61. Kf3 Rd3+ 62. Ke2 Ke4 63. Kf2 Bd4+ 64. Kg2 Rf3 65. Kh2 Rf2+ 66. Kg1
Kf3 67. Kh1 Rf1+ 68. Kh2 Be5+ 69. Kh3 Rh1#) 52... b2 53. Rb1 Ba3 54. Kxg4 Rc1
55. Rxb2 Bxb2 56. d6 Kf7 57. d7 Ke7 58. d8=Q+ Kxd8 59. Kf3 Rc4 60. Ke3 Rd4 61.
Ke2 Bc1 62. Kf3 Ke7 63. Ke2 Ke6 64. Kf3 Kf5 65. Kg3 Rd3+ 66. Kf2 Kf4 67. Kg2
Rd2+ 68. Kf1 Kg3 69. Ke1 Kf3 70. Kf1 Rd1#) 0-1


Date: 2006
White: Not me
Black: Me
Result: 0-1
ECO: A45

{401MB, Fritz8.ctg, STICHFACE} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e3 O-O 5. Nf3
d6 6. Be2 b6 7. e4 c5 8. Be3 cxd4 9. Bxd4 Nc6 10. e5 Nxd4 11. exf6 Nxc2+ 12.
Qxc2 Bxf6 13. O-O Bb7 14. Rfd1 Rc8 15. Qb3 Rc5 16. Nd2 Bg7 17. Nde4 Re5 18. Bf3
Qa8 19. Nd2 Rc8 20. Re1 Rg5 21. Bxb7 Qxb7 22. Nde4 Re5 23. Rad1 b5 24. Rd5 Rxc3
25. Qxb5 Qxb5 26. Rxb5 Rxe4 27. Rb8+ Bf8 28. Rf1 Rc7 29. Rb5 0-1

There are some that would argue that in the first game, my position was hopeless for many moves, and they would be right.

I won both of these games by not resigning,

I would say that there are a lot of things to be said for not giving up too soon,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

EZBeet
04-10-2006, 05:01 PM
I have been known to resign, against titled players I often will :(

Against anyone else it depends on their attitude. If they are looking disgruntled about my playing on, I keep going. If they are looking relaxed and happy and looking forward to mating me I like to deny them the pleasure.

If they are winning because I blundered horribly I play on to the end as a way of punishing myself.

Generally though, I have seen so many beautiful swindles that I nearly always play on to the death.

MichaelBaron
05-10-2006, 02:51 AM
There is a point in playing on if there are swindling chances...Otherwise....hm..against a strong player its a wast of time

harry
05-10-2006, 09:13 AM
There is a point in playing on if there are swindling chances...Otherwise....hm..against a strong player its a wast of time

Totally! also if you are playing someone under 1800 there is always a 10% chance they will make a mistake and give back material before they checkmate .Average players who resign a piece down against someone the same rating are not fighting so why bother playing :rolleyes:

Southpaw Jim
07-10-2006, 08:58 PM
When down material, I play on until I get bored with getting my arse whipped :lol:

Basil
25-10-2007, 11:00 AM
Does this qualify? Black to move.

8/p6p/K7/7P/6P1/P3k3/8/3B4 b - - 8 51

Kevin Bonham
25-10-2007, 11:04 AM
Yep, Black should definitely resign that against anyone rated over about 600.

Take away the a-pawns and it's worth playing on at club level just in case White manages to lose his g-pawn and leave himself with a drawn wrong-square bishop and rook pawn position.

CameronD
25-10-2007, 12:43 PM
Cant really answer the poll as it depends on the what material is left on the board. In double rook and games even been 3 pawns down can be covered.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 12:53 PM
However, I did have an opponent of mine this year resign on me at around move 10 in a materially equal position. I was flabbergasted and tried to talk him out of resigning but his heart wasn't in it. Quite a bizarre situation. If I think of it, I'll post the game tonight.
Resignation is not an offer than can be talked out of, but a game ender. Article 5.1b:


The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.
So even if you had talked him out of it, an arbiter must let the resignation stand, at least one who is following the FIDE Laws as written rather than the way that Geurt Gijssen would like them to be written ;)

Rincewind
25-10-2007, 03:02 PM
Resignation is not an offer than can be talked out of, but a game ender. Article 5.1b:


The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.
So even if you had talked him out of it, an arbiter must let the resignation stand, at least one who is following the FIDE Laws as written rather than the way that Geurt Gijssen would like them to be written ;)

This is all true but it take one aback when it happens in a position which is equal or only slightly worse. I doubt the arbiter would have cared all that much and I think the overall development of the player would have been positively influenced by playing on and not resigning in such positions. In the end my powers of persuasion were not sufficient anyway.

eclectic
25-10-2007, 03:10 PM
resign means end of game!

next we'll have players objecting to being checkmated and protesting to the arbiter that their game was made too brief! :P

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 03:16 PM
This is all true but it take one aback when it happens in a position which is equal or only slightly worse.
It actually happened in an Asian Junior I played in long ago in Bangladesh, where in the last round, a despondent local resigned after getting the worst opening. His opponent tried to talk him out of it, but the knowledgeable and honorable chief arbiter from that country said that resignation is not an offer.


I doubt the arbiter would have cared all that much and I think the overall development of the player would have been positively influenced by playing on and not resigning in such positions. In the end my powers of persuasion were not sufficient anyway.
There's little doubt that the resignation was very premature, and giving up too early will not do his chess development any good.

Denis_Jessop
25-10-2007, 03:51 PM
We had a player in the Canberra CC some years ago who resigned after not many moves against a pretty girl who was at least 1000 rating points weaker than he was but I don't think it did him any good :rolleyes:

DJ

PS We also had another pretty girl in the Canberra CC for a very short time a few years later on which makes two in about 75 years. Is this a record? :uhoh:

Garrett
25-10-2007, 03:54 PM
We had a player in the Canberra CC some years ago who resigned after not many moves against a pretty girl who was at least 1000 rating points weaker than he was but I don't think it did him any good :rolleyes:


Worth a try, cheaper than buying her drinks I guess.

WhiteElephant
25-10-2007, 04:03 PM
We had a player in the Canberra CC some years ago who resigned after not many moves against a pretty girl who was at least 1000 rating points weaker than he was but I don't think it did him any good :rolleyes:


Wasn't that antichrist's trick? :)

Miguel
25-10-2007, 04:24 PM
This only refers to tournament games:
If I'm the winning player, then I don't care if my opponent chooses to play on. I just calmly play good moves. (Since I've signed up to play, I'm in no hurry to be anywhere else.)
If I'm the losing player, then I'll resign when I'm good and ready (though I usually resign before mate), even if my opponent is visibly annoyed. If he's in such a hurry to win the game, then the onus is on him to play the best moves.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 04:43 PM
The poll is impossible to answer, because it also depends on the strength of opposition and the time control.

Miguel
25-10-2007, 04:52 PM
The poll is impossible to answer, because it also depends on the strength of opposition and the time control.
Good point. If it were a correspondence game (not that I play CC, but hypothetically...), I'd probably resign quite early.

Kevin Bonham
25-10-2007, 05:24 PM
Cant really answer the poll as it depends on the what material is left on the board.

The poll specifies that you are that far down in "the middlegame" (so say about half the pieces are off the board) and that there is no compensation.


The poll is impossible to answer, because it also depends on the strength of opposition and the time control.

Assume it is against the average strength of opponent that you play against, and that it is a serious-length rated game (not blitz or rapid).

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 06:14 PM
Assume it is against the average strength of opponent that you play against, and that it is a serious-length rated game (not blitz or rapid).
Against another FM, probably a clear minor piece down would be time to call it quits. Against the average player from my club, probably a rook.

Basil
25-10-2007, 06:30 PM
We had a player in the Canberra CC some years ago who resigned after not many moves against a pretty girl who was at least 1000 rating points weaker than he was but I don't think it did him any good :rolleyes:

DJ

PS We also had another pretty girl in the Canberra CC for a very short time a few years later on which makes two in about 75 years. Is this a record? :uhoh:
Yes, I'd say so. I don't think there's ever been a case when a state's entire population of pretty girls has joined chess clubs.

Well it was funny when it entered my mind.

Rincewind
25-10-2007, 08:09 PM
Yes, I'd say so. I don't think there's ever been a case when a state's entire population of pretty girls has joined chess clubs.

I'll pay you back my entire balance of HCDs for that one. ;)

Denis_Jessop
25-10-2007, 08:26 PM
Yes, I'd say so. I don't think there's ever been a case when a state's entire population of pretty girls has joined chess clubs.

Well it was funny when it entered my mind.

Not true. You are speaking to an expert here who uses his "kindly old grandfather" approach to good, though limited, effect and can report that there is an adequate supply of non-chess playing ones and even a few who have asked to be taught how to play (chess, that is). But that is a nascent project at the moment. Just to round out the picture, I remember that there was another girl at Canberra CC who turned out to be prettier after she stopped playing chess which may be significant :hmm: :doh:

DJ

Basil
26-10-2007, 03:34 PM
Well if the last one was resignable, what about this? :eek:
Black to move
Who among us ...

8/K7/7p/7P/P4kP1/8/8/3B4 b - - 0 53

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2007, 03:44 PM
Supposedly 15 of the 33 respondents to this poll so far would not resign since they only resign when mate is imminent or else don't resign at all.

Shame on them. :lol:

I gather an opponent of yours was playing on in this position? :rolleyes:

DanielBell
26-10-2007, 04:24 PM
I didn't vote because it depends for me.. I just resign when I know the game is lost for me.. That largely depends on strength of my opponent, my second game in the Parra champs I lost a knight in the opening and thought I was finished, but I went on to win a knight and a rook for my trouble! In the same position against one of the stronger players I might have played on a bit more, and when it was certain I was not getting my material back, I'd resign.

My openings are very bad so at the moment I'm always blundering material in the opening, usually a pawn (last night 3 pawns!), occasionally material but usually I go on to get a draw at least. Last night I was 3 pawns down at one stage, recovered 1, but then I was forced into a losing exchange and resigned, if my opponent can beat me tactically (which is my only saving grace usually, I love tactics) then there's not much point me continuing!

I have resigned before mate before, although I didn't realize this annoyed people (I'm a new player remember, I often don't realize mate is coming so end up playing on in a dead position!), however from now on if mate is only a few moves away I'll just let them take it.

At my level I don't care if my opponent resigns 1 move before mate, a win is a win! haha!

Aaron Guthrie
26-10-2007, 04:30 PM
Has anyone mentioned the how much one hates the opponent or are otherwise just having a bad day factor?

edit-Or the my opponent keeps posting my position in the "When to resign" thread factor?

Rincewind
26-10-2007, 06:16 PM
How about this position?

6k1/1p1b3p/5p2/p7/P4KPP/1P6/8/8 b - - 0 41

White a full piece down and with his queen-side pawns fixed on white squares didn't resign. He offered a draw!!! :) There were tactical reasons (in that I only needed a draw to win the tournament and a 1/2 point would have helped his cause for a placing). After seven more moves the following position:

6k1/8/6P1/pp4Kp/8/8/8/3b4 w - - 2 48

I guess, convinced him that his chances of winning were now zero.

There are certain parallels between the final position here and Howard's position which is what reminded me of this game.

Phil Bourke
26-10-2007, 07:35 PM
I decline to vote because my rationale for resigning is whether the game is lost. The material surplus/deficit isn't part of the consideration, the threat of mate does enter into calculations at times ie I have resigned a piece up because the opponent had an unstoppable mate threat. (I never considered it rude to resign at this time, as I have always felt that it was actually complimentary in that I wasn't playing to the death in the vain hope of being let off by a mistake.)
In essence, if I can't see any way of salvaging the game, be it by a swindle or otherwise, I resign.

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2007, 08:06 PM
I decline to vote because my rationale for resigning is whether the game is lost.

My question is: all other things being equal at what point do you feel things are hopeless enough to pull the plug?


The material surplus/deficit isn't part of the consideration, the threat of mate does enter into calculations at times ie I have resigned a piece up because the opponent had an unstoppable mate threat.

That is a case where all other things are not equal because one side has compensation. I'm talking about an average middlegame where one side is that much material down, and that is all. There are no mate threats, no structural issues, no fiery attacks and no obvious and immediate swindle chances on the board.

I have played on piece down or Q for R down even with no swindle chances on the board on the grounds that swindle chances might turn up later if I am skilled enough in setting them up. But if you are Q down for nothing or even R down for nothing that's a lot to hope for.

Desmond
26-10-2007, 10:27 PM
Well if the last one was resignable, what about this? :eek:
Black to move
Who among us ...

8/K7/7p/7P/P4kP1/8/8/3B4 b - - 0 53
I guess you could head for h4 with the king and hope for Qe3. ;)

But yeah personally I'd be too embarassed to sit at the board with this position.

Aaron Guthrie
26-10-2007, 10:46 PM
That is a case where all other things are not equal because one side has compensation. I'm talking about an average middlegame where one side is that much material down, and that is all. There are no mate threats, no structural issues, no fiery attacks and no obvious and immediate swindle chances on the board.Are you playing tic-tac-toe or something? ;)

The ceteris paribus clause doesn't sit well with me. The amount of material that one can be down and still reasonably play on is directly related to the type of position (and the position could be equal with equal material). It seems to me that with your list of what there are not (no mate threats, structural issues etc.) you are trying to give a list of what would count as giving swindling chances or compensation. But then it seems to me that if there are no swindling chances or compensation and you are down material, well, it is time to resign!

Basil
26-10-2007, 10:54 PM
Shame on them. :lol:

I gather an opponent of yours was playing on in this position? :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you switch the tense to the present, I'd be able to answer *ahem*. Whatever you do, do not under any circumstances, I repeat do not look at the Correspondence thread.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2007, 11:33 PM
Seems like I was most unsporting not to resign after losing a piece while still in the opening, against an IM opponent who became a GM a year later :evil:

Kouatly, B (France) - Sarfati,J (NZ)
[A58]
Thessaloniki Ol, 1988
Board 2, Last round
[J. Sarfati]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6 6.Nc3 Bxa6 7.f4 d6 8.Nf3 Bg7 9.e4 Bxf1 10.Rxf1 0-0 11.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 Ng4 13.Qe2 Qc7? 14.d6 exd6 15.Qe4 {oops} 15... Nc6 16.Qxg4 dxe5 {just playing on out of inertia} 17.Kf2 Nd4 18.Kg1 f5 19.Qh4 Rae8 20.Bh6 e4 21.Ng5 Bxh6 22.Qxh6 e3 23.Rae1 Qg7 24.Qxg7+ Kxg7 25.Rc1 h6 26.Nf3 g5 27.Rfd1 Rd8 28.Kf1 g4 29.Nxd4 cxd4 {some chances now} 30.Ne2 d3 31.Nf4 e2+ 32.Nxe2 dxe2+ 33.Kxe2 Rfe8+ 34.Kf2 Ra8 35.Rc7+ Kg6 36.Rc6+ Kg5 37.Rdd6 Rxa2 38.Rb6 Rg8 39.Rxh6 Rxb2+ {now it's dead equal. So draw offer. He was pissed! Complaining to me, badmouthing me to the arbiter in French.} 40.Rxb2 Kxh6 41.g3 Re8 42.Kg2 Kg5 43.h4+ gxh3+ 44.Kxh3 Re3 45.Rf2 Ra3 46.Rf1 Ra2 47.Rf3 Rb2 48.Rf4 Ra2 49.Rb4 Rc2 50.Rb8 Ra2 51.Rg8+ Kh5 {He now offered a draw through the arbiter, which was relayed through our board 1, Vernon Small (who got his IM from this olympiad} ½-½ {Afterwards, Ian Rogers congratulated me, even though I was playing for the Kiwis. I pointed out that I'd tossed a piece in the opening, and he grinned, "I know". Looks like some Schadenfreude about seeing Kouatly stuff up :lol: }

Basil
27-10-2007, 12:18 AM
He was pissed! Complaining to me, badmouthing me to the arbiter in French.
Refer my comments q.v. regarding my trip to France one day where I shall atone for ill deeds of the French. Other than that ... vaaaaay naaaace [/Borat]

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2008, 03:59 PM
Both players should probably be burnt at the stake for this one. I was black in an interclub game in 1998, in which I played the opening exceedingly badly:

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nge2 c5? 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Nxc3 dxe4 7.dxc5 Qxd1+ 8.Nxd1 f5 9.Bf4 Nc6 10.Nc3 a6 11.0-0-0 Nf6 12.Na4 e5
13.Bg5 Nd7? 14.Bc4 h6 15.Bd2 Ke7 16.Bc3 Rb8 17.Rd6!! (but he doesn't realise it) 17...Nxc5??! (I won't often use ??! but in this case it's appropriate!)

Instead of winning easily with 18.Rxc6! (F11: +3.7) my opponent (who in the late eighties had an ACF rating of around 1450, which the ratings officers of the time somehow managed to annul, and he never played enough games to get a new one) decided he was simply losing a rook or a piece, and resigned. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2008, 04:24 PM
But then it seems to me that if there are no swindling chances or compensation and you are down material, well, it is time to resign!

That is what I was getting at, except that I am only specifying no obvious and immediate swindle chances, since it could be said that just about any middlegame position has some chance of a swindle eventually popping up. In such a circumstance, how much material down is too much? Would even a pawn do it?

Aaron Guthrie
12-01-2008, 06:03 PM
In such a circumstance, how much material down is too much? Would even a pawn do it?I think I have resigned one game a pawn down, at about move 17. I can't be bothered looking it up at the moment.

I have also found that if I can't see any swindling chances, my opponents sometimes still find some way to draw/lose it. This can make it hard to even resign positions that I think are pretty much dead lost.

CameronD
12-01-2008, 08:40 PM
I thought gunners game when he was a rook down and pawns is resignable, yet the guy stuffed up and stalmated gunner

Basil
12-01-2008, 09:03 PM
I thought gunners game when he was a rook down and pawns is resignable, yet the guy stuffed up and stalmated gunner
Intent & Context! C. Howie Useful concepts, aren't they?

I'd suggest that what I played for was quite acceptable (in that there was a plan and it was short-lived) and completely different from aimless running pieces around the board and wasting (literal) time as in just running the clock down, or the opponent's time (life) by being disrespectful.

Carry on! You're all doing very well.

CameronD
12-01-2008, 09:11 PM
Cant believe he didn't put a rook behind the passes pawn and push... did you help an old lady that morning or something

Basil
12-01-2008, 11:19 PM
... did you help an old lady that morning or something
No. I think it is more likely to be the law of equalisation from this game of mine from last year as detailed in the 'That's Not Cranky, This Is Cranky' thread:

4r1k1/2p3q1/2p1P2p/3n4/1p1p3P/1P4P1/P1P1Q1K1/5R2 b - - 2 33

I had black and was about to win a rook cold (or end up a full rook up depending on white's answer to ... Ne3+) but instead allowed mate a few moves later.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2008, 10:04 AM
I thought gunners game when he was a rook down and pawns is resignable, yet the guy stuffed up and stalmated gunner

It was worse than that; black didn't even have to stalemate but could have given up the rook and still won pretty easily.

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 e6 3. e4 h6 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 5. e5 Qd8
6. f4 c5 7. c3 cxd4 8. cxd4 Bb4+ 9. Nd2 Qa5 10. Ngf3 Nc6 11. a3 Bxd2+ 12. Qxd2
Qxd2+ 13. Kxd2 b6 14. b4 Bb7 15. Bd3 O-O 16. Be4 Rfd8 17. b5 Na5 18. Bxb7 Nxb7
19. Rhc1 Na5 20. Rc3 d6 21. Rac1 dxe5 22. fxe5 Nb7 23. Ke3 a6 24. Rc7 Na5 25.
bxa6 Rxa6 26. Re7 b5 27. Rcc7 Nc4+ 28. Kf4 Rf8 29. Nh4 g5+ 30. Kg4 gxh4 31.
Kxh4 Rxa3 32. g4 Ne3 33. g5 Nf5+ 34. Kg4 Nxe7 35. Rxe7 hxg5 36. Kxg5 b4 37. h4
Rd8 38. Kh6 Rd3 39. Ra7 R3xd4 40. h5 b3 41. Ra1 Rd1 42. Ra4 Rg1 43. Rg4+ Rxg4 stalemate

It's quite amazing (at any level) that Black played the overprotective 42...Rg1 when white is only threatening to give check and ...b2 obviously queens very quickly.

Against a player of my own rating I would have resigned immediately after 29...g5+.

Against a player of Howard's opponent's rating, I'd like to say I would have played on for a swindle but I think I really would have given up after going the whole rook down.

Basil
14-01-2008, 12:41 AM
Against a player of Howard's opponent's rating, I'd like to say I would have played on for a swindle ...
Good man!


... but I think I really would have given up after going the whole rook down.
Well you would have been 1/2 a point worse off in that case!

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 12:56 PM
My first loss in a New Zealand Champs (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1450676), resigning before any material had gone.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-01-2008, 12:40 PM
You should resign when the probability of your loss exceeds 1

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 12:57 PM
You should resign when the probability of your loss exceeds 1
But then you'd never resign, since it is impossible for a probability to exceed 1 by definition.

CameronD
17-01-2008, 01:25 PM
But then you'd never resign, since it is impossible for a probability to exceed 1 by definition.

and there's always a slight chance that your opponent faints or something and lose

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2008, 07:33 PM
My first loss in a New Zealand Champs (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1450676), resigning before any material had gone.

I'd resign this too, against a strong opponent (say 2100+).

Igor_Goldenberg
18-01-2008, 02:30 PM
But then you'd never resign, since it is impossible for a probability to exceed 1 by definition.
I am glad you noticed:cool:

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2008, 03:14 PM
I have received some abuse from Phil Donnelly elsewhere for not resigning earlier in my recent loss to Janice Martin (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=196070&postcount=761). To paraphrase, he suggests my playing on in a dead lost position was dishonorable and implies that one should resign (or play other moves) if one's only hope is a swindle.

The reasons I did not resign earlier were that (i) I had not realised during the game that there was absolutely no way to free my king-side, hence, embarrassingly, I did not fully know I was dead lost (ii) it was plausible that white might elect to win my knight, giving up the pawn in the process, in which case I would have practical drawing chances.

In addition, it is rather hard to argue against playing on in a tournament in which one has already won a game from a whole rook down!

Anyway, Donnelly's caustic comments (which I can't quote here as he is permanently banned) invite a full review of Phil's own form in the resignation department. It turns out that it is very shoddy indeed! From a sample of 34 Donnelly losses from the period 2000-2005 here are several that could have - and in some cases should have - been put out of their misery earlier.

Donnelly-Todd

1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Ngf3 c5 6.g3 Nc6 7.Qe2 Qc7 8.c3 Ndxe5 9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nxf3+ 11.Nxf3 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 Qa5 13.Rd1 0-0 14.Qe3 Bxd2+ 15.Rxd2 Qxa2 16.Be2 Qb1+ 17.Bd1 Qe4 18.Qxe4 dxe4 19.Ng5 e5 20.dxe5 Nxe5 21.Nxe4 Bh3 22.f3 Rfe8 23.Kf2 Rad8 24.g4 Rxd2+ 25.Nxd2 Nd3+ 26.Kg3 h5 27.Ne4 hxg4 28.Bb3 gxf3 29.Bxf7+ Kxf7 30.Nd6+ Kf8 31.Nxe8 Kxe8 32.Kxh3 Nf2+ 33.Kg3 Nxh1+ 34.Kxf3 a5 35.Kg2 b5 36.Kxh1 a4 37.Kg1 b4 0-1

After 32...Nf2+ white is obviously dead lost and should give up at once against any multi-cellular organism.

Sakov - Donnelly

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Qc7 9.Qd2 Nbd7 10.0-0-0 b5 11.Kb1 b4 12.Nd5 Bxd5 13.exd5 a5 14.Bb5 Be7 15.Bc6 Rc8 16.h4 0-0 17.Qf2 a4 18.Bxa4 Nc5 19.Bc6 Nxb3 20.cxb3 Nd7 21.Rc1 Nc5 22.Qe2 Rb8 23.g4 Qa5 24.h5 Rb6 25.Bxc5 dxc5 26.f4 f6 27.g5 Bd6 28.gxf6 gxf6 29.Qg4+ Kh8 30.Qe6 Ra6 31.Qxd6 Qxa2+ 32.Kc2 Rg8 33.Qxf6+ Rg7 34.h6 Ra3 35.Qxg7#

After 29.Qg4+ swindles are black's only reason to continue. If the penny didn't drop then it should have a few moves later when black is a piece down and obviously has only the spite check on a2 left with no hope of getting the other rook around without getting cleaned up in the process (especially as the opponent was the reigning state champion!)

Donnelly - Ledger

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Qc2 Qc7 8.Be2 d6 9.Bg5 Nbd7 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Nc5 12.f3 Bd7 13.Rfd1 h6 14.Bh4 g5 15.Bg3 Nh5 16.Bf2 Nf4 17.Bf1 0-0-0 18.Rab1 h5 19.g3 Ng6 20.Qb2 f5 21.exf5 exf5 22.Qd2 f4 23.Nb3 Ba4 24.Qd5 Ne5 25.Bxc5 dxc5 26.Qxc5 Qxc5+ 27.Nxc5 Rxd1 28.Rxb7 Bc6 29.Ra7 Nxf3+ 0-1

White is a whole rook down after 27...Rxd1 and should clearly resign immediately.

Mihelcic - Donnelly

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4 e5 7.Nf3 Be6 8.Bd3 Be7 9.0-0 Qc7 10.h3 Nbd7 11.Re1 Bc4 12.Be3 0-0 13.Qd2 Rfd8 14.Bxc4 Qxc4 15.b3 Qb4 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 Qxd2 18.Nxd2 b5 19.Ra2 f5 20.f3 Re8 21.Rea1 b4 22.Nc4 Rac8 23.Rd1 Kf7 24.Kf1 Bf8 25.Raa1 e4 26.Bf4 Ne5 27.Bxe5 dxe5 28.fxe4 fxe4 29.Re1 Bc5 30.Rxe4 Rcd8 31.Rd1 Bd4 32.Ne3 Kf6 33.g4 Bxe3 34.Rxe3 e4 35.Rd4 a5 36.Rdxe4 Rxe4 37.Rxe4 Rxd5 38.Ke2 g5 39.Re3 Rc5 40.Kd3 Rc3+ 41.Kd2 Rc5 42.c3 Rxc3 43.Rxc3 bxc3+ 44.Kxc3 Ke5 45.Kc4 Kf4 46.b4 1-0

The pawn ending is clearly extremely lost; why play any moves in it at all?

Hendrey-Donnelly

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Bg5 h6 7.Be3 Nbd7 8.h4 e5 9.d5 Ne8 10.Qd2 Kh7 11.h5 g5 12.Bg4 Ndf6 13.Bxc8 Qxc8 14.f3 Qd7 15.g4 a6 16.Nge2 Ng8 17.Ng3 Ne7 18.Nd1 Rc8 19.Rc1 c6 20.b3 cxd5 21.cxd5 Rxc1 22.Qxc1 Nc7 23.a4 Rc8 24.Qa3 Ne8 25.Bd2 b5 26.a5 Bf8 27.Ne3 Qc7 28.Ke2 Qd7 29.Rc1 Rxc1 30.Qxc1 Qc7 31.Qxc7 Nxc7 32.Ngf5 Nxf5 33.Nxf5 f6 34.Be3 Kg8 35.Bb6 Ne8 36.Kd3 Kf7 37.Bd8 Ng7 38.Nxh6+ Ke8 39.Bxf6 and later 1-0

According to Phil he resigned not long after the final move included in his score. Immediately would have been more to the point.

Donnelly-Bonham

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qc7 7.Qg4 f5 8.Qh5+ Qf7 9.Be2 Nc6 10.Qh4 Bd7 11.Nf3 g6 12.Rb1 b6 13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4 Qe7 15.Bg5 Qxa3 16.Rb3 Qf8 17.Bb5 h6 18.Ra1 Na5 19.Bxd7+ Kxd7 20.Rb5 Nc6 21.c4 Nge7 22.Bf6 Rg8 23.Qf4 dxc4 24.Re1 Re8 25.Nd2 g5 26.Qf3 g4 27.Qe3 Nd5 28.Rxd5+ exd5 29.e6+ Kc7 30.Qf4+ Kb7 31.Qxf5 Ne7 32.Qe5 Rg6 33.Bxe7 Qxe7 34.Qxd5+ Kb8 35.Qe5+ Qc7 36.d5 Qxe5 37.Rxe5 c3 38.Nb3 Rg5 39.Rxg5 hxg5 40.Kf1 Kc7 41.Ke2 Kd6 42.Kd3 Ke5 0-1

White is clearly lost after the queenswap and only the possibility of a swindle with the advanced pawns or a blunder by black justifies playing any further moves from that point. Incidentally Donnelly's version of the game gives no indication that he played on past move 29.

Pavicic - Donnelly

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Be2 Nbd7 8.0-0 Qc7 9.Nb3 Be7 10.Re1 b5 11.Bd3 Bb7 12.a3 0-0 13.Rc1 e5 14.Nd2 Nc5 15.b4 Ne6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Ne2 d5 18.exd5 Bxd5 19.c4 bxc4 20.Nxc4 e4 21.Ne3 Qb7 22.Bb1 Bc6 23.Ng3 Bb2 24.Rxc6 Qxc6 25.Bxe4 Qc3 26.Bxa8 Rxa8 27.Nd5 Qxa3 28.Re3 Qa1 29.Qxa1 Bxa1 30.Ra3 Be5 31.b5 Bd6 32.Rxa6 Rxa6 33.bxa6 Bb8 34.Nf5 Nc5 35.Nb4 Kf8 36.Nd4 Ke8 37.Ndc6 Kd7 38.Nxb8+ Kc7 39.N8c6 Nxa6 40.Nxa6+ Kxc6 41.Nb4+ 1-0

Once the bishop is lost it's pointless. Again he needlessly plays on a few moves.

Jones - Donnelly

1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 e6 6.d4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Qxd4 8.Bd3 Nd7 9.Bf4 Ne5 10.Bxe5 Qxe5 11.0-0-0 Nf6 12.Rhe1 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Qc5 14.Qd3 Qe7 15.Bxh7 Rd8 16.Qe4 Rxd1+ 17.Rxd1 Qf6 18.Qd3 Qf4+ 19.Kb1 Qc7 20.Be4 Rh5 21.f4 Rb5 22.f5 e5 23.g4 Be7 24.h4 Bxh4 25.Qh3 Bf6 26.Qh5 Rb4 27.Qh1 Qb6 28.b3 Rd4 29.Re1 Qb4 30.Bxc6+ bxc6 31.Qxc6+ Ke7 32.Rh1 Rd6 33.Qc8 e4 34.g5 Bd4 35.Qc7+ Rd7 36.Qf4 Bc3 37.f6+ gxf6 38.gxf6+ Bxf6 39.c3 Qxc3 40.Qxe4+ Kf8 0-1

Black plays on a piece down for several moves when only swindles could save him.

Pavicic - Donnelly

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.0-0 Qc7 9.f4 Nbd7 10.f5 Bc4 11.Be3 b5 12.Bxc4 Qxc4 13.Qd3 Rc8 14.Nd2 Qc6 15.Rfc1 Nc5 16.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 17.Kh1 Be7 18.h3 0-0 19.Ne2 d5 20.c3 Rc6 21.exd5 Ng4 22.Ne4 Qc4 23.Qf3 Qxe4 24.Qxe4 Nf2+ 25.Kg1 Nxe4 26.dxc6 Bc5+ 27.Kh2 Rc8 28.Rd1 Bb6 29.g4 Rxc6 30.Ng3 Nf2 31.Rd2 Rh6 32.Kg2 Nxh3 33.Rad1 Nf4+ 34.Kf3 g5 35.Rd6 Rxd6 36.Rxd6 Bc5 37.Rxa6 Nd5 38.Ne4 ... 1-0

Again it is indicated that black threw in the towel soon after the end, but why not right away, or even shortly before?

Tandori - Donnelly

1.d4 Nf6 2.e4 Nxe4 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Re1 d5 8.a3 c5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b4 Bd6 11.Bg5 Nbd7 12.Ne2 Qc7 13.Ng3 h6 14.Be3 e5 15.Be2 Nb6 16.Rc1 Be6 17.Bxb6 Qxb6 18.c4 dxc4 19.Bxc4 Bxc4 20.Rxc4 Rad8 21.Qc1 Rfe8 22.Nf5 Ng4 23.Rxg4 Bf8 24.Nxh6+ Kh7 25.Nf5 Qf6 26.Qc2 g6 27.Rh4+ Kg8 28.Nh6+ Kg7 29.Ng5 Be7 30.Nhxf7 1-0

A good example of why not to resign - on move 24 black is a whole piece down and being smashed to an arguably resignable level, but had he seen 28...Bxh6 he would have been back in business.

Donnelly - Bonham (another shocker by me, but again the forces of darkness prevail)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qc7 7.Qg4 f5 8.Qg3 cxd4 9.cxd4 Ne7 10.Qb3 Nbc6 11.Nf3 Bd7 12.Bd3 0-0 13.0-0 Na5 14.Qa2 Rac8 15.a4 Nc4 16.Ba3 Nxa3 17.Qxa3 Rfe8 18.Rfc1 Qc3 19.a5 Rc7 20.Qd6 Qc6 21.Bb5 Qxd6 22.exd6 Bxb5 23.dxc7 Rc8 24.Rab1 a6 25.Ng5 Rxc7 26.Nxe6 Rc6 27.Nc5 Rc7 28.Re1 Nc6 29.Nb3 Ba4 30.Rec1 Re7 31.f3 Bxb3 32.Rxb3 Nxd4 33.Rd1 Nxb3 34.cxb3 Rd7 35.Rd4 Kf7 36.Kf2 Ke6 37.Ke3 g5 38.g3 Kd6 39.h4 h6 40.h5 Kc5 41.Kd3 Re7 42.Ra4 Re1 43.b4+ Kb5 44.Ra2 Rg1 45.Rc2 Rxg3 46.Rc7 Kxb4 47.Rxb7+ Kxa5 48.Rh7 Rxf3+ 49.Kd4 Rh3 50.Rxh6 f4 0-1

Half a dozen moves from the end the rook ending is obviously lost and only the slim chance of a swindle (or of black playing as badly as he has in the rest of the game) justifies continuing.

My sample only goes up to 2005. Did he see the light since then and convert to the school of always resigning at the earliest opportunity? Naaaah!

Dyer-Donnelly, 2007

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Be7 8.g4 h6 9.Be3 b5 10.a3 Bb7 11.Bxe6 Nxe4 12.Qf3 0-0 13.Bd5 Bxd5 14.Nxd5 Bg5 15.Qxe4 Re8 16.Qf3 Nd7 17.0-0-0 Ne5 18.Qg3 Rc8 19.h4 Bxe3+ 20.Nxe3 Qa5 21.Nb3 Qa4 22.Kb1 a5 23.Rd4 Nc4 24.Nxc4 bxc4 25.Nd2 Qb5 26.Qc3 d5 27.Rd1 Rb8 28.Nf1 Re6 29.Rxd5 Qb7 30.Ne3 Rb6 31.Rd8+ Rxd8 32.Rxd8+ Kh7 33.Nxc4 1-0

Black plays on a whole piece down without even realistic swindle chances for aaaaaaaages!

I should note that in several of the remaining games in the sample, we cannot know if Donnelly could have reasonably resigned earlier, since moves are missing because of his extremely poor time management skills.

My point is not that there is something unsporting about playing on in (most of) these positions, although some of them are far more ridiculous than anything I have ever played on in (unless it was blitz or the opponent was in extreme clock danger). My point is that Donnelly needs to get his own house in order on the resignations front before criticising anyone else's decisions to play on, and the games above provide abundant evidence that this is not the case. While he doesn't seem to drag out games where he is a rook or more down, he frequently plays on "out of inertia" for a few to several moves past the point where he is objectively very much lost.

For this reason I announce a no resignation against Phil Donnelly policy. In the unfortunate and hopefully unlikely case that he ever again finds himself in a completely won position against me, he will have to wait for his playlunch; unless the Laws of Chess at the time require otherwise, I shall be playing on til mate! :lol:

(This policy shall be rescinded should Donnelly retract his comments, admit that he was inconsistent in making them, and express some vague interest in patching up his inability to consistently criticise others.)

Basil
23-05-2008, 03:36 PM
I have received some abuse from Phil Donnelly elsewhere
Abuse from Phil? Now there's a double standard. Here Phil, have some back, you dribbling half-baked flop.


The reasons I did not resign earlier were that (i) I had not realised during the game that there was absolutely no way to free my king-side, hence, embarrassingly, I did not fully know I was dead lost
Yes, stupidity is not a crime, and in this case a full defence! :lol:


(ii) it was plausible that white might elect to win my knight, giving up the pawn in the process, in which case I would have practical drawing chances.
And has been shown here (par moi @ Parra) can and does happen. In fact Dribbling Phil needs to add the lovely Watto to his list coz she repeated moves (and didn't resign) while staring at a mate-in-one threat (against her) that even my granny could have seen.

Spiny Norman
23-05-2008, 03:50 PM
Time on the clock, opponent's demeanour, atmosphere in the club (how many spectators), state of opponent's bladder, and a whole host of other factors contribute to whether I consider resigning or not.

Sometimes, if the opponent has played a beautiful combination, I will gracefully play on to the coup-de-grace so as not to deprive them of the pleasure of delivering mate.

I wouldn't measure such things just by the scoresheet.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2008, 04:29 PM
I can't recall taking an opponent's demeanour into account in deciding whether/when to resign.

I did once take into account my opponent's attitude to resignation, though - I was a whole rook up and waiting for my opponent to throw in the towel when I hung my queen to a backwards knight capture. After that I played on with rook and two pawns for queen and was overwhelmingly lost several times but decided that if my opponent wouldn't resign a whole rook down then he would not consider it unsporting if I kept going too. In the end the obligatory Swindle appeared and I won the game.


Sometimes, if the opponent has played a beautiful combination, I will gracefully play on to the coup-de-grace so as not to deprive them of the pleasure of delivering mate.

I don't actually find there to be any particular pleasure in delivering checkmate, but as mentioned before I find it very puerile when opponents string the game out forever in extremely lost positions, and then quit one or two moves before mate.


Time on the clock

Yes, playing on in any position whatsoever is justified where the opponent has left themselves with insufficient time, especially in a guillotine finish. I didn't take that into account in my comments about Phil because I am well aware he is an extremely poor manager of his time in guillotine finishes especially, and hence it's very likely most of his opponents had more time left than he did in most of the games I posted.

Basil
24-05-2008, 12:38 PM
The player with black was all but new to tournament play. This game (under tournament conditions) possibly pushed the envelope a little far! I sensed that the opponent had no idea what the ettiquette was and I wasn't phased in the slightest. We shook hands and analysed afterwards.

The point of the post? I think this illustrates that it isn't necessarily simply the position alone that one must consider when allocating judgement for not resigning at a particular time.

I present the vacuum cleaner ...

1. d4 f5 2. Bf4 Nf6 3. Nd2 d6 4. c4 Be6 5. g3 h6 6. Bg2 c6 7. Qc2 g5 8. e4 gxf4 9. exf5 fxg3 10. Ne4 gxf2+ 11. Qxf2 Nxe4 12. Bxe4 Qa5+ 13. Ke2 Bxc4+ 14. Bd3 Bxd3+ 15. Kxd3 Qb5+ 16. Ke3 Bg7 17. Nf3 Nd7 18. Rag1 Bf6 19. Rg6 O-O-O 20. Rhg1 Qxf5 21. a4 Nb6 22. d5 Nxd5+ 23. Ke2 Nf4+ 24. Kf1 Qd3+ 25. Ke1 Qb1+ 26. Kd2 Qxb2+ 27. Ke3 Nd5+ 28. Ke4 Qxf2 29. Rxf6 Qe3+ 30. Kf5 Qxf3+ 31. Ke6 Qxf6# 0-1

CameronD
24-05-2008, 12:49 PM
giving gunners history of botchering won games. I think any resignation against him to be ill advised.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2008, 01:39 PM
I have advised a lower rated player elsewhere not to resign unless he was sure that he could easily win the game from his opponent's side, regardless of the opposition. E.g. if he thinks he could win against a 2000 opponent if they swapped sides, then a fortiori, this 2000 player could win against him. But if he is not sure that he could win it, he should see some sort of demonstration of winning technique till the position reaches one he could win after swapping sides.

Spiny Norman
24-05-2008, 02:08 PM
Does one consider "value for money" arguments? e.g. in a 5-round tournament, at $10 entry fee, gives $2/game of "value" to be extracted ... if one blunders a piece in the opening, have you gotten your money's worth yet?

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2008, 02:26 PM
Does one consider "value for money" arguments? e.g. in a 5-round tournament, at $10 entry fee, gives $2/game of "value" to be extracted ... if one blunders a piece in the opening, have you gotten your money's worth yet?

I don't, because if the position is so lost that I am convinced it should be resigned, then I would generally value playing on in that position at zero - indeed I would probably pay some small number of cents to avoid it!

But I don't resign if I hang a piece in the opening anyway. A whole rook, maybe, or a couple of pawns down and the opponent has an overwhelming attack.

littlesprout85
24-05-2008, 06:10 PM
RawR !!!

Sprouty is a real fighter. Been known to make great comebacks & win. Alot of times meh opponent has a great middle game but no end game ;)

Another reason for not tossin in the towel is that you dont gain any knowledge from it. Losin is sometimes winning if you learn a new twist. Or like can drag it out til move 60 and really make em work for that win. LOL:doh:

Once had an opponent resign who was way ahead. Then like couldnt seal the deal(no end game) after getting into those extra innings. :owned:

Sprout feels that you owe it to your rank, your self worth & pride to finish the game. Even if you know its coming- just play faster and with grace. Sometimes your oppnents make mistakes due to destractions. You just neva know unless you finish the game.

sprout :)

george
24-05-2008, 08:27 PM
Hi Kevin,

Phil must really have upset you for you to expose some shockers of his as you did. Peace brother , may i never upset you in any way shape or form and if i do intentionally or otherwise i unreservedly apologise.

Phil Bourke
24-05-2008, 11:20 PM
Here is a game that gives me fond memories. As Black and against a higher rated opponent, I was lost for all money. But then there was one thing that might work. Plus my opponent was down to 2 mins or less in a 60 min + 10 sec game. So I played on, prepared to resign once my one small chance disappeared. To my opponent's chagrin, he didn't realise/see it.
Event: Dubbo RSL Open
Site: Dubbo
Date: 2007.03.25
Round: 6.2
White: Bemrose, Trevor
Black: Bourke, Phil
Result: 0-1
ECO: C18
WhiteElo: 1784
BlackElo: 1526
Annotator: Toga II 1.1a (30s)
PlyCount: 74
EventDate: 2007.03.24
EventRounds: 6

{C18: French: 3 Nc3 Bb4: Main line: 7 h4 and 7 Qg4} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3
Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qc7 7. Nf3 b6 8. Bb5+ Bd7 9. Bd3 cxd4 (
9... Ba4 10. O-O (10. h4 Nd7 11. h5 h6 12. O-O c4 13. Be2 O-O-O 14. Nh4 Ne7 15.
Bg4 Rdg8 16. f4 Nf8 17. f5 Kb8 18. f6 Nc6 19. fxg7 Rxg7 20. Bh3 Qe7 21. Nf3 Nd7
22. Bf4 Kb7 23. Qd2 Rgh7 24. Rfe1 a6 {
Kobese,W-Fraser Mitchell,J/Caleta ENG 2005/1-0 (41)}) 10... c4 (10... Nd7 11.
Ra2 c4 12. Be2 Ne7 13. Re1 h6 14. h4 O-O-O 15. Bf1 Rdg8 16. g3 Nf8 17. Bg2 Qd8
18. Bd2 Nf5 19. Rb2 Ne7 20. Rb4 Bd7 21. a4 a5 22. Rb2 Bxa4 23. Qa1 Bc6 24. Reb1
Nd7 25. Qa3 {Moreno Carnero,J-Berg,E/Bermuda 2003/CBM 94/0-1 (89)}) (10... Ne7
11. Be3 Nd7 12. Ng5 h6 13. Qh5 g6 14. Nxe6 fxe6 15. Bxg6+ Kd8 16. Bf7 Nf8 17.
Bxh6 Bxc2 18. Qg5 Bg6 19. Bxf8 Rxf8 20. Bxe6 Qc6 21. Bh3 Bf5 22. Bxf5 Rxf5 23.
Qh4 Kd7 24. f4 Rg8 25. Ra2 {Goldberg,A-Haba,P/Germany 2001/CBM 82 ext/0-1}) (
10... Nc6 11. Be3 Na5 12. Ng5 h5 13. dxc5 bxc5 14. Qf3 Nc6 15. Qf4 c4 16. Bc5
Nh6 17. Bd6 Qd7 18. Bh7 Ne7 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Rfb1 Qc7 21. Rb4 Bc6 22. Rab1 Ke7
23. Qh4 Kd7 24. f4 a5 25. R4b2 {
Vidarsson,J-Kjartansson,D/Reykjavik ISL 1999/1-0 (58)}) 11. Be2 Ne7 12. h4 Nbc6
13. h5 h6 14. Nh4 O-O-O 15. Bg4 Rdg8 16. g3 g6 17. hxg6 Nxg6 18. Ng2 h5 19. Bh3
h4 20. g4 Ncxe5 21. dxe5 Qxe5 22. Bd2 Qg7 23. f4 Nf8 24. Rc1 {
Costantini,R-Iotti,P/Reggio Emilia 2001/CBM 81/1/2-1/2 (61)}) (9... Ne7)
10. cxd4 Nc6 11. O-O f6 (11... Nge7 12. Re1 ) 12. exf6 (12. Rb1 f5 )
12... Nxf6 13. a4 (13. g3 Qd8 ) 13... Na5 (13... O-O) 14. Re1 O-O-O
(14... O-O ) 15. g3 (15. Ne5 Rhg8 ) 15... Nc4 16. Ng5 (16. Bf4 Qc6) 16... Rde8 (16... Rhf8) 17. Bf4 e5 18. dxe5 (18. Bxe5 Nxe5
19. dxe5 (19. Rxe5 h6 20. Nf3 Bg4 )) 18... Nxe5 (18... Bg4 19. Qc1
Nh5 ) 19. Ba6+ Kb8 20. Bxe5 (20. Nf3 {makes it even easier for White}
Ne4 21. Rxe4 dxe4 22. Nxe5 Rxe5 23. Bxe5 Qxe5 24. Qxd7 Qc7 (24... Qxa1+
{is not directly advisable because of the following mate in 3} 25. Kg2 Qh1+ 26.
Kxh1 Ka8 27. Qb7#)) 20... Rxe5 21. Rxe5 Qxe5 22. Nf7 Qe8 23. Nxh8 Qxh8 24. Qe2
(24. Qd4 {and White can already relax} Qf8) 24... Qf8 (24... Qe8 25. Qxe8+
Nxe8 26. Bd3) 25. Qe5+ Ka8 26. Qc7 (26. Bb5 {keeps an even firmer grip} Qc8) 26... Qb8 27. Qxb8+ (27. Qc3 Qd6) 27... Kxb8 28. Bb5 (28. Re1 Ng8)
28... Bxb5 (28... Kc7 29. Re1 Kd6 30. Bxd7 Kxd7 31. f3 $18) 29. axb5 Ne4 30.
Re1 Nd6 31. Re7 Nxb5 32. Rxg7 a5 33. f4 (33. Rxh7 a4 34. Re7 Nd4 ) 33... a4
34. f5 (34. Rxh7 {is the less attractive alternative} a3 35. Rh8+ Kb7)
34... a3 35. f6 (35. Re7 a2 36. Re1 Nd4) 35... a2 36. f7 {
a weak move, ruining a winning position} (36. Rg8+ {
White has a promising position} Ka7 37. f7 a1=Q+ 38. Kg2) 36... a1=Q+
37. Kf2 Qxg7 (37... Qxg7 38. Ke3 d4+ 39. Ke4 Qxf7) 0-1

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2008, 05:55 PM
Here is a game that gives me fond memories. As Black and against a higher rated opponent, I was lost for all money. But then there was one thing that might work. Plus my opponent was down to 2 mins or less in a 60 min + 10 sec game. So I played on, prepared to resign once my one small chance disappeared. To my opponent's chagrin, he didn't realise/see it.

This is quite a common method by which a swindle occurs. The player pulling off the Swindle creates counterplay and focuses on it; the player who is winning but struggling on the clock underestimates it and fails to stop it in time. As your annotating engine notes, 36.Rg8+ saves white by enabling him to play f7 without losing his rook to the new queen in the process. But the resulting position is still very hard for white to win, especially short of time.

Was also interested in the game as I often play that ...Qc7 Winawer line myself and one must be very careful not to mix up ideas from different lines of it (as I tend to do about six games in ten). As your notes show 9...Ba4 is one reply for black and has been recommended in a couple of Watson's books (it's always amusing when a book recommends a line on the basis that it's "avoiding book"!) 9...Nc6 with ...Nge7 transposing into a 6...Ne7 7.Nf3 line is another option.


Phil [PhilD not PhilB - KB] must really have upset you for you to expose some shockers of his as you did.

I doubt he would be capable of upsetting me, however much damage he might or might not do to my reputation in trying. However, when it comes to vindictive trolls who won't get their own house in order before slinging their mud at others, I do not consider any of mercy, patience or restraint to be virtues. :lol:

Phil Bourke
25-05-2008, 06:38 PM
This is quite a common method by which a swindle occurs. The player pulling off the Swindle creates counterplay and focuses on it; the player who is winning but struggling on the clock underestimates it and fails to stop it in time. As your annotating engine notes, 36.Rg8+ saves white by enabling him to play f7 without losing his rook to the new queen in the process. But the resulting position is still very hard for white to win, especially short of time.

Was also interested in the game as I often play that ...Qc7 Winawer line myself and one must be very careful not to mix up ideas from different lines of it (as I tend to do about six games in ten). As your notes show 9...Ba4 is one reply for black and has been recommended in a couple of Watson's books (it's always amusing when a book recommends a line on the basis that it's "avoiding book"!) 9...Nc6 with ...Nge7 transposing into a 6...Ne7 7.Nf3 line is another option.



I doubt he would be capable of upsetting me, however much damage he might or might not do to my reputation in trying. However, when it comes to vindictive trolls who won't get their own house in order before slinging their mud at others, I do not consider any of mercy, patience or restraint to be virtues. :lol:

On the first, I am now sticking with 3...Nf6 :) I only mix up lines there about 4 times in 10 :)

On the matter of a winner missing the one chance his opponent has, that may have initiated the maxim, "When winning, make sure that your opponent has no counterplay!"

On the last bit.............Can't say I blame you :)

george
25-05-2008, 08:21 PM
hi Kevin,

I dont blame you for getting stuck into the guy but your expose was such that i thought i better apologise ahead of time for anything/everything i may have uttered to or about you to anyone/noone living or dead.

kindest and most deep felt regards - your most humble servant!!

Basil
25-05-2008, 09:00 PM
hi Kevin,

I dont blame you for getting stuck into the guy but your expose was such that i thought i better apologise ahead of time for anything/everything i may have uttered to or about you to anyone/noone living or dead.

kindest and most deep felt regards - your most humble servant!!
Wouldn't happen, George. Kevin and I only take out the trash on special occasions and for extra special people - although it's true that when we do we don't mess about.

george
26-05-2008, 11:38 AM
hi all,

I think my sense of humour is a bit too dry. I better start adding smily faces:)

Phil Bourke
26-05-2008, 11:55 AM
hi all,

I think my sense of humour is a bit too dry. I better start adding smily faces:)
I'm loving it :) Leave them guessing, just like a good move on the board :)

Basil
26-05-2008, 12:01 PM
hi all,

I think my sense of humour is a bit too dry. I better start adding smily faces:)


I'm loving it :) Leave them guessing, just like a good move on the board :)
Right. This is war! I've only just recovered from six months of not reading mangafranga ... :wall:

Tony Dowden
26-05-2008, 11:17 PM
Hi there KB,

I played through these games in the weekend ... and still feel somewhat undecided as whether you've really made your case.

Some thoughts:

1. The Jones game is confusing (what was the point?)

2. Time checks would be helpful - sometimes its quite reasonable to play on in either your own or your opponents time-trouble.

3. PD quite often resigned only a few moves later than 'recommended'. This is fairly common psychological phenomenon where it takes a little while to sink in.

4. Even the Dyer game can be excused on the grounds of 'unbelief that anything this drastic can be happening to me' so early on in the game - I've seen the same a few times before. Here, the Markovitz-Dowden (2008 Tas Champs) game is an example you are familiar with.


Now, here's a vintage example from the 1980s of a truly blatant refusal to resign. My opponent had been walking all over me but hadn't seen my defensive idea of a counter exchange sac and ended up with a ruined position after the time control. Unable to reconcile himeself to the thought that he was about to lose to one of the lowest rated players in the field, he starting bashing his moves out quickly accompanied by loud piece thumping and clock bashing. :rolleyes:

Rather undiplomatically I played to the gathering audience and toyed with him for a while - before the sudden thought that he might stall and keep me up half the night (it was a very slow time control) made me think better of underpromoting all my pawns and so I decided to mate him quickly instead.

In deference to my opponent, who has matured considerably in the intervening years, I shall not reveal his name. (Not Jono by the way - but he'll know who).

XXX (2200+) - Dowden (2100 or so)
1.f4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg4 5.c3 Nf6 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Bd3 0-0 9.0-0 Qb6 10.Nd2 d5 11.e5 Nfd7 12.Rf2 e6 13.Nf1 c5 14.Be3 Qc7 15.g4 cxd4 16.cxd4 f5 17.gxf5 gxf5 18.Rg2 Kh8 19.Qh5 Nc6 20.Rd1 Rae8 21.Ng3 Ne7 22.Kh2 Rg8 23.Rdg1 Rc8 24.Qf7 Nf8 25.Qh5 Qd7 26.Qe2 Nfg6 27.Nh5 Rcf8 28.Rg5 Rf7 29.Bb5 Qd8 30.Qf2 a6 31.Be2 Rgf8 32.h4 Bh6 33.R5g2 Ng8 34.Kh3 Re8 35.Bd2 Bf8 36.Rxg6 hxg6 37.Qg3 Ree7 38.Qxg6 Rg7 39.Nxg7 Rxg7 40.Qh5+ Rh7 41.Qg5 Be7 42.Qg6 Bxh4 43.Rh1 Rh6 44.Qf7 Be1+ 45.Kg2 Rxh1 46.Kxh1 Qh4+ 47.Kg2 Qg3+ 48.Kh1 Qh3+ 49.Kg1 Bxd2 50.Qh5+ Qxh5 51.Bxh5 Kg7 52.Be8 Ne7 53.Kf2 Bxf4 54.b4 Nc6 55.Kf3 Bc1 56.Bd7 Kf7 57.Bc8 Nxb4 58.Bxb7 a5 59.a4 Nc2 60.Ke2 Nxd4+ 61.Kd3 Nf3 62.Kc2 Bg5 63.Kd3 Nxe5+ 64.Kd4 Nf3+ 65.Kc5 Be7+ 66.Kb5 Bb4 67.Kc6 Ke7 68.Kb5 Kd6 69.Bc8 Nd4+ 70.Kb6 f4 71.Ba6 f3 72.Bf1 e5 73.Kb7 e4 74.Kc8 e3 75.Kd8 e2 76.Ke8 f2 77.Kd8 exf1=Q 78.Kc8 Qg1 79.Kd8 f1=N 80.Kc8 Kc6 81.Kd8 Qg8+ 0-1

Clearly White should have resigned at around move 45. There was no justification whatsoever to play on another 30-odd moves and his poor behaviour at the time simply drew attention to the fact.

Maybe others can offer even better examples!

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2008, 12:22 AM
Now, here's a vintage example from the 1980s of a truly blatant refusal to resign. My opponent had been walking all over me but hadn't seen my defensive idea of a counter exchange sac and ended up with a ruined position after the time control. Unable to reconcile himeself to the thought that he was about to lose to one of the lowest rated players in the field, he starting bashing his moves out quickly accompanied by loud piece thumping and clock bashing. :rolleyes:

Rather undiplomatically I played to the gathering audience and toyed with him for a while - before the sudden thought that he might stall and keep me up half the night (it was a very slow time control) made me think better of underpromoting all my pawns and so I decided to mate him quickly instead.

In deference to my opponent, who has matured considerably in the intervening years, I shall not reveal his name. (Not Jono by the way — but he'll know who).
Yes, I remember this game, Tony. It was unreasonable for your opponent to play on. It's not even that he made a crass oversight in a lost position, but rather he misplayed his clearly advantageous position. E.g. it seems better to gain control of the g-file before opening it with 17. gxf5, although he managed to take it anyway. I also like 32. Nxg7 when the Black Ns look short of squares.

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2008, 01:04 AM
I played through these games in the weekend ... and still feel somewhat undecided as whether you've really made your case.

My case is about the inconsistency of PhilD's public comment about my resignation against Janice, given the nature of his own resignations over the years, many of which are in much the same boat as mine and a few of which, IMHO, are worse.

I have PMd you his post elsewhere so you can see what I was responding to. What Phil complained about in my game (playing on for half a dozen moves in a totallly lost position) is no different to what he has done in many.


3. PD quite often resigned only a few moves later than 'recommended'. This is fairly common psychological phenomenon where it takes a little while to sink in.

Exactly, and this was quite similar to what happened in my game against Janice - but Phil has publicly criticised me for playing on.

Donnelly has had the hide to publicly attack me for not resigning at the point where my position became totally lost and suggested that by playing on I acted dishonourably (I doubt he actually believes this, and suspect he is just saying it to be abusive). But as I have already pointed out, I had not at that stage realised it was hopeless (although I should have!).

Also, just being in what I would call a totally lost position doesn't mean you need to resign. I will call a position totally lost if it is an overwhelming win with best play for the opponent. But in some "totally lost" positions there are still real swindle chances if the opponent plays imperfectly, that may justify continuing.

There is nothing wrong (by itself) with playing on a bit at the point of first becoming lost in many of the Donnelly games I posted (I have already said this). I would have done so in several myself. But if you play on in those sorts of positions, even for a few moves only, you forfeit the right to consistently complain about somebody else playing on for a half-dozen moves in a lost position. In my view, Phil's comments were therefore hypocritical.


1. The Jones game is confusing (what was the point?)

Simply that for several moves at the end white has no chance except a swindle, so if Phil doesn't think playing for swindles in lost positions is OK (as his comments about the Martin game indicate) then he should have resigned well before the end of the Jones game.


2. Time checks would be helpful - sometimes its quite reasonable to play on in either your own or your opponents time-trouble.

True and I would include them if I had them. However my experience from watching many Donnelly games over the years was that his time management was utterly atrocious until the life support system known as increments was brought in, so it's more likely Phil was more severely short of time in many of these.

Another defect of PhilD's argument that I hadn't noticed until I PMd it is this: he attacks me for not resigning when my position was "totally" lost and refers to me instead playing on for "an obligatory swindle". But in fact he has these two things the wrong way around - the swindle attempt was on move 37 (and spectacularly refuted by Janice's 38th) and the point where my comment about being totally lost occurs is move 43. I resigned on move 49.


Now, here's a vintage example from the 1980s of a truly blatant refusal to resign.

Indeed, extremely blatant.


Rather undiplomatically I played to the gathering audience and toyed with him for a while

I don't find toying with people in need of resigning lessons especially undiplomatic at all.

Bereaved
27-05-2008, 01:07 AM
Hi everyone, at what point is too long in the below game?


[Date "1999"]

[White "Else"]
[Black "Macavity"]
[Result "0-1"]
[PlyCount "66"]


1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. Nc3 e6 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Qxd7 8. O-O e5 9. Qd3 O-O 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Bg3 Na6 13. a3 Nc7 14. Rfe1 b5 15. Nd1 Nh5 16. Ne3 c4 17. Qe2 Ng7 18. h3 h5 19. c3 Na6 20. Nxe5 dxe5 21. Bxe5 f6 22. Bd4 Nc5 23. Qf3 Nd3 24. Re2 Ne5 25. Qg3 Bd6 26. f4 Nd3 27. e5 gxf4 28. Qg6 fxe5 29. Nxc4 bxc4 30. Bf2 f3 31. Rd1 Nf4 32. Qe4 fxe2 33. Re1 Qf5

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2008, 01:13 AM
I'd give that up after 28...fxe5.

Basil
27-05-2008, 01:23 AM
Cripes. That's 'orrible. About where Kevin said depending on the strength of the opponent.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2008, 01:32 AM
All the same, Black's earlier play was positionally weak, resulting in an 'orrible dark-squared B and chronically frail light squares.

Tony Dowden
29-05-2008, 10:06 PM
Yes, I remember this game, Tony. It was unreasonable for your opponent to play on. It's not even that he made a crass oversight in a lost position, but rather he misplayed his clearly advantageous position. E.g. it seems better to gain control of the g-file before opening it with 17. gxf5, although he managed to take it anyway. I also like 32. Nxg7 when the Black Ns look short of squares.

I knew you would remember this game Jono!

Your points are well noted (and probably reflect correct judgement) but I think the issue of misplaying the position up to 10 moves before the obvious time to resign is a separate issue. (Here it should be note dth ganme was adjourned sometiem around move 40-42, so there was plenty of opportunity to resign gracefully).

Actually, I reckon my opponent and I were both overrated back then. Neither player showed much understanding of positional play!

Tony Dowden
29-05-2008, 10:10 PM
I have PMd you his post elsewhere so you can see what I was responding to.

Indeed! :(

Maybe I've said enough :hand:

Thanks for your considered reply.

Good luck for the Tassie Open - you'll need it :lol:

Cheers, Tony

PS That's 100 posts - I must be addicted :)

Garvinator
30-05-2008, 12:09 AM
PS That's 100 posts - I must be addicted :)
Special prize awaits you at 200 posts :)

Jezza
30-05-2008, 01:31 PM
There is no one time where I give up. For me it is a psychological things. It usually gets to a point where I cant be bothered playing as I am sure I am going to lose. So if I lose a rook, mementum might keep me going for a bit but then it hits me and I know that I am lost

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2008, 11:32 PM
Two books I purchased this week, Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics (3rd edn) and Der letzte fehler, both include this classic that I was not previously aware of.

Hickl-Solomon (yep, the same one) Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988

7R/8/6k1/6p1/5pK1/1r6/8/8 w - - 0 1

White played 1.Rg8+ Kf6 and now 2.Rg6+ draws (if black takes it it is stalemate, if not the g-pawn goes with a theoretically drawn KRPKR).

White missed the draw and instead played 2.Rf8+

Black to move and it's adjournment time (remember those)? Black wins easily with ...Ke7 or ...Kg7 with ...Rg3+ and ...f3 to follow, but not noticing the trap that white had missed the first time round, he sealed ...Kg6 repeating moves to analyse later.

The envelope hence contained a move that would have allowed black to draw, but assuming that black had sealed a win and not a blunder, white duly made one ...

... by resigning without resuming play!

Adamski
06-06-2008, 12:12 AM
A very sad tale for White. Moral: never resign and adjourned game without resuming and seeing the sealed move (only applies in the good old days of adjourned games, of course).

Kevin Bonham
11-07-2008, 05:34 PM
Junior chess throws up some classics too. Today on close to bottom board in a country interschool monster swiss I arrived at the board to find the following material:

Black king
White pawn
White rook
White queen
White king lying on its side

On the very bottom boards we often have players who basically know the rules and that's it, and have no idea how to use pieces together to get a mate. In this case the girl playing white explained that she had given up because she had got sick of trying unsuccessfully to checkmate black with these pieces.

Bearing in mind that no sheep stations were on the line, I overruled the resignation and declared the game a draw, and explained to her that she can offer draws to her opponent if she gets sick of trying to win.

Xoote
12-07-2008, 12:31 AM
I "Always play on til mated"

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2008, 11:56 AM
Junior chess throws up some classics too. Today on close to bottom board in a country interschool monster swiss I arrived at the board to find the following material:

Black king
White pawn
White rook
White queen
White king lying on its side

On the very bottom boards we often have players who basically know the rules and that's it, and have no idea how to use pieces together to get a mate. In this case the girl playing white explained that she had given up because she had got sick of trying unsuccessfully to checkmate black with these pieces.

Bearing in mind that no sheep stations were on the line, I overruled the resignation and declared the game a draw, and explained to her that she can offer draws to her opponent if she gets sick of trying to win.
Seems reasonable, esp. as the game had already been legally drawn under 5.2b (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article) so the resignation occurred invalidly after game completion:


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 legal.

Phil Bourke
12-07-2008, 12:14 PM
In a recent juniors team match involving kids a bit older than this, one of our team had fought back after having to give up his queen for a rook to finish the game in a K + B v K draw. Once the last pawn was taken, he claimed the draw, but his opponent disagreed saying that he thought it was possible he could win.
Under the rules of the competition, they then had to play on. The supervising teacher from the the other school, someone who has been a friend for near 30 years and a non chess playing person, approached me quietly and asked if it could be won. I said no. He said, tell him it is a draw. I said that I couldn't and why I couldn't, his reply, tell him it is a draw!
I then showed the boy involved that it couldn't be won and gave him a short lesson on the minimum material required to give mate.
This boy was aged 16-17, so it isn't just the young ones that know the bare rules and not much else.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2008, 03:33 PM
Seems reasonable, esp. as the game had already been legally drawn under 5.2b (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article) so the resignation occurred invalidly after game completion:

Actually, it hadn't. The game was not complete under 5.2b as White (who "resigned") could still win with her remaining pieces if she only had the slightest clue how. But I just don't believe a player with only their king remaining should be able to win a game on a "resignation", given that is just about the only way they "can" win it. Such a player cannot even win by illegal move in blitz (unless it was the illegal move that reduced them to their king!)

If resignation against a lone king occurred in a serious (eg rated) tournament game where I expected players to know the rules, I would be inclined to score the game as 0:1/2.


Under the rules of the competition, they then had to play on. The supervising teacher from the the other school, someone who has been a friend for near 30 years and a non chess playing person, approached me quietly and asked if it could be won. I said no. He said, tell him it is a draw. I said that I couldn't and why I couldn't, his reply, tell him it is a draw!
I then showed the boy involved that it couldn't be won and gave him a short lesson on the minimum material required to give mate.
This boy was aged 16-17, so it isn't just the young ones that know the bare rules and not much else.

This is interesting because the rules of the competition are contrary to the FIDE Laws in that case.

Under the FIDE Laws as soon as K+B vs K, or any other formally "dead position" appears on the board (K v K and K+N v K are the commonest by far), the game is immediately drawn under 5.2b and the arbiter should step in and stop play immediately.

I've also found that quite a few highschool players take some convincing that king and minor piece can't mate.

black
12-07-2008, 05:01 PM
Chuck Norris can checkmate with King and Bishop versus King.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2008, 03:32 PM
Actually, it hadn't.

The game was not complete under 5.2b as White (who "resigned") could still win with her remaining pieces if she only had the slightest clue how. But I just don't believe a player with only their king remaining should be able to win a game on a "resignation", given that is just about the only way they "can" win it. Such a player cannot even win by illegal move in blitz (unless it was the illegal move that reduced them to their king!)
This makes more sense, and should be official: a player who can never win by any series of legal moves should never gain more than a half. Same goes if his opponent's mobile phone rings.


If resignation against a lone king occurred in a serious (eg rated) tournament game where I expected players to know the rules, I would be inclined to score the game as 0:1/2.

This is interesting because the rules of the competition are contrary to the FIDE Laws in that case.
You're right. But this seems a strange anomaly in the Laws if a game can be declared drawn if neither player can mate, but there is a possible loss for the player who CAN mate.

Phil Bourke
13-07-2008, 04:10 PM
This is interesting because the rules of the competition are contrary to the FIDE Laws in that case.

Under the FIDE Laws as soon as K+B vs K, or any other formally "dead position" appears on the board (K v K and K+N v K are the commonest by far), the game is immediately drawn under 5.2b and the arbiter should step in and stop play immediately.

I've also found that quite a few highschool players take some convincing that king and minor piece can't mate.
This would seem to be rational and logical. As always, one should always check, in the sheet handed to me by the school teacher on the conduct of these matches, it is quite explicit that all decisions regarding the result of the game must be made by the players involved without recourse to discussion with spectators or supervisors.
Your posting made me think to check with the website to see if there was any additional guidance there. Lo and behold;

5 e. It is essential that all spectators including supervisors refrain from making comments on a game in progress or interfering in any way, except where an illegal move has occurred or where there is insufficient material for a checkmate and players are playing on (the game is drawn). Where chess clocks are being used, observers should not comment on the state of the clock, for instance pointing out that a player is short of time or his flag has fallen.
A much more sensible rule.

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2008, 05:05 PM
Yes; furthermore, a "game" with K+B vs K is not actually "in progress" as under the Laws of Chess it has already ended. But the rules as they stand there are fine anyway.

Aaron Guthrie
16-07-2008, 10:51 PM
Chuck Norris can checkmate with King and Bishop versus King.Chuck Norris can checkmate with King versus King and Bishop.

black
17-07-2008, 02:45 AM
Chuck Norris can checkmate with King versus King and Bishop.

Chuck Norris can.

Jesper Norgaard
19-07-2009, 07:59 PM
When would you resign? There are many points of view right from the gentleman-view that you must resign when your opponent is probably winning, to School Chess where trainers demand that the pupils never resign and continue until mate (because so many errors occur that quite frankly not all hopeless positions lose).

I was flabbergasted when my opponent resigned in the following position:

8/1rR2kp1/1P1pn3/3Np3/4K3/4B3/8/8 b - - 0 53

Quite frankly I was still expecting a long game ahead, and had only 15 minutes on the clock. The point is that Black will play 53...Nxc7 54.bxc7 Rxc7 55.Nxc7 and we have Knight and Bishop alone against three pawns. Mexicos own GM Gilberto Hernandez once blew it. I expected to be able to mop up the pawns fairly quickly, but still checkmating with Knight and Bishop is something that GMs have been known to mess up. I was especially prepared (rather an expert in the Philidor method of mating with N+B) but I don't think he knew that for a fact.

Would you have resigned here? What is your ethics on when to resign and when not to resign?

Kevin Bonham
19-07-2009, 08:29 PM
Merged the above with our existing thread on this.

I would never resign just because I was facing KNB vs K since there have even been instances of strong grandmasters messing it up; indeed in a rapid in a dead lost position (piece down in minor piece endgame) I deliberately played to reach K vs KNB in the hope my opponent could not win it. Sure enough he couldn't and I escaped with half a point.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2009, 02:07 AM
When would you resign? There are many points of view right from the gentleman-view that you must resign when your opponent is probably winning,
No way! Resign only if there is almost certainly no way that your opponent can avoid winning. This takes into account playing strength, e.g. most club players can be trusted to win KQvK, but it might be worth continuing KBNvK even against a GM, unless the superior side has previously demonstrated proficiency with this.

shan_siddiqi
21-07-2009, 08:51 PM
The only reason to resign out of courtesy is when your position is completely and utterly lost. I've had a position once where I was down more than a full queen (At the time, I was 1300 and my opponent was 1600), and my opponent let me sneak in for mate in 2. It was something like this, with Black to play:

http://www.stlchess.com/forum/download/file.php?id=244


Of course, I find it annoying when I have a king and two rooks against a king and a knight, and my opponent still feels the need to spend 10 minutes thinking about every move. But if you have ANY sort of play left in the game (like I did in the above example), then you should play for it. The purpose of resigning isn't to concede that you've been outplayed, it's to save yourself and your opponent the effort of tediously executing an obvious game.

Jesper Norgaard
22-07-2009, 01:27 PM
The purpose of resigning isn't to concede that you've been outplayed, it's to save yourself and your opponent the effort of tediously executing an obvious game.
I like this statement. It's all right to play hope chess until there really is no hope left. When you sign up for a game you should be prepared to use all the alotted time of your opponent plus whatever time you will use yourself. Anything less is a bonus. I don't agree that there is a moral obligation to resign in any given moment.

Viktor "the terrible" Korchnoi has had some problems in this area because he "knew" when his opponents had to resign. Once in a game with IM Julian Estrada he loudly demanded that now it was time for Julian to resign, because Viktor had Queen against Rook with a few pawns on each side. Perhaps the position was won, but by making a scandal, playing silly moves and becoming outraged, was not the way to persuade his opponent that he was calmly and convincingly going to win the position. After some discussions Korchnoi made a terrible blunder that let the Queen go to a skewer from Julian's Rook, so Viktor had to resign. I am quite sure Julian was not playing for a win, but just refused to resign to Viktor at his whims, when Viktor was showing no convincing winning technique and seemed to be more interested to end the game here and now than a true chess contest.

Witty hounds have published a special Viktor-chess-clock with an extra button for Viktor to press that will exclaim "You have to resign now!".

Trying to convince your opponent he has a moral obligation to resign is in fact the worst way to do it. If you calmly play convincing moves that shows you have understood every detail of the situation, will soon make resignation a relief for your opponent. Rushing out moves because it's "too easy to win this position", will be the most compelling argument to continue playing for the lost opponent.

Miranda
22-07-2009, 01:51 PM
I must admit, I've always wanted to be able to offer my opponent to resign.. after all, I find it rather annoying when I'm forced to win KQvK instead of my opponent simply resigning. Although my rating isn't that high, I think pretty much any player over 1000 would easily know how to win (and not stalemate!).

Alana
22-07-2009, 04:00 PM
I've gotta say I'm a resign-when-a-FULL-piece-down sorta person, except in lightning and rapid where I tend to play on for a while.

Goughfather
22-07-2009, 06:41 PM
My rule of thumb is something along the lines of resigning in a position where you would be embarrassed to have people watching your game.

black
22-07-2009, 06:48 PM
Starting to think that there isn't a good time. I've had so much "bad luck" recently from strong positions. There has been a pattern in which my opponents choose to play on either to target my clock, or to hope for blunders. I have lost nice games to blunders (due usually to time pressure), and also simply being flagged.

Since I decided to try this out, I have started to play on in bad positions in which I would usually resign. Strangely I have found myself getting wins and draws.

There is no justice in chess, and objective assessments are meaningless much of the way up the chess ladder, and still partly so at the very top.

Learning to maintain a fighting attitude in all positions seems to pay off.

Tony Dowden
22-07-2009, 06:55 PM
I haven't reviewed the whole thread but think the 'when should you resign' poll at the beginning is misguided to only consider material issues - the dynamics and/or potential in a positionand confidently demonstrated technique both matter too.

Basically I'm willing to resign whenever I'n fully convinced that my poistion is dead lost and when my opponent really knows how to beat me. But sometimes I end up in denial re either one of both of these and so play on longer than I should :)

So against a player rated 500 points below me I'd probably make them prove they can reel in the full point. On the other hand as soon as I realise I'm completely dead against someone 500 points above (basically a GM) then that's probably a pretty good time to resign.

In the Doeberl Cup this year I had an interesting game where, logically, I was completely dead in the water against player rated quite bit below me and I could ('should') have resigned. But then I realised saccing Q for R would give me some interesting play for a while ...

My opponent seemed shocked by my relatively quick decision to sac my queen and didn't adjust well to the dynamic nature of the position. So even though I remained objectively lost right up until the last moves of the game, he seemed so unnerved by all the tactics and my general refusal to be materialistic (I avoided winning the queen back once or twice because I would have been much worse) that he eventually seemed very relieved to draw.

Its also important to realise that when you play someone stronger, you are very likely to be worse for at least some of the game. Attitude matters! If you can apply some kind of pressure than someone my strength (1950-2150ish) can occasionally beat titled players in the 2300 and 2400 range because they miss sneaky tactics or get short of time and blunder.

I've also pulled off two or three incredible swindles which are up there with my best games in terms of creative achievement. You don't pull off a swindle by resigning. Instead you try and think deeply (at least more deeply than your hopefully over-confident opponent!) and look for hidden ideas ...

AzureBlue
22-07-2009, 08:16 PM
I reckon after a piece down, except in lightning! :)

Kevin Bonham
22-07-2009, 11:17 PM
I haven't reviewed the whole thread but think the 'when should you resign' poll at the beginning is misguided to only consider material issues - the dynamics and/or potential in a positionand confidently demonstrated technique both matter too.

I've answered this sort of objection (to the degree that it can be answered) a few times through the thread by pointing out that the poll question is prefaced with All other things being equal. The poll isn't suggesting only material matters, but it is suggesting material balance is a major dimension (and one that is easily quantified). So "all other things being equal" automatically includes that the position is neither teeming with potential swindles nor so locked down that the material underdog couldn't possibly get a whiff of play. It also includes that the opponent is neither playing the position with the sureness of a super-GM nor seemingly about to hang a piece every second move.

I realise that even with those sorts of factors out of the way, material balance might still not be the prime consideration for some players. If I could think of an easy way of polling some of the other dimensions, I might do that. (The existing poll's been going for ages and probably won't get that many more votes - it could easily be replaced with a new one.)


In the Doeberl Cup this year I had an interesting game where, logically, I was completely dead in the water against player rated quite bit below me and I could ('should') have resigned. But then I realised saccing Q for R would give me some interesting play for a while ...

This queen for rook thing seems to come up rather often on this thread - it seems like it is a lot of material to be down but in quite a lot of positions the player with the queen struggles to make it count.


I've also pulled off two or three incredible swindles which are up there with my best games in terms of creative achievement. You don't pull off a swindle by resigning. Instead you try and think deeply (at least more deeply than your hopefully over-confident opponent!) and look for hidden ideas ...

We have a great swindles thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4562) here; feel free to exhibit some works of art there to make up for being the victim of #26. :D

shan_siddiqi
23-07-2009, 11:47 PM
Well, all other things being equal, I'd resign if I was a piece down (maybe even two pawns). But all other things are usually not equal - when you're down material, you often have some sort of compensation. For most lost pawns, you gain a half-open file for your rook; for most lost pieces, you get an extra tempo or two that might be critical to your attack.

Basil
14-08-2009, 01:56 PM
I thought of this thread when I stumbled across this (in an old Times desktop chess diary puzzle-a-day thing that I was given as a present) last week.

The accompanying text reads:

"White to play.
This position is from the game Solomon - Bjelobrk, Melbourne 2001.
Black is a piece up but is terminally weak on the kingside dark squares. How did this enable white to force mate?"

2rq1r1k/5p1p/bpn5/p4N2/3p4/6P1/PPPQ1R1P/4R1K1 w - - 0 1

This is supplied for mere interest sake as the compensation issue discussed within the thread clearly applies.

Brian_Jones
14-08-2009, 03:25 PM
This is supplied for mere interest sake as the compensation issue discussed within the thread clearly applies.

Except that 1.Qh6 Rg8 2.Re8 wins immediately! ;)

Basil
14-08-2009, 03:57 PM
Except that 1.Qh6 Rg8 2.Re8 wins immediately! ;)
Yes. Mate in 5 - which is (one of) my point(s).

Rincewind
14-08-2009, 04:34 PM
Yes. Mate in 5 - which is (one of) my point(s).

There are many more ways not to have mate in 5 than to have mate in five which is why talking about when to resign one normally prefaces the statement with "all other things being equal". Generally don;t resign when you have a forced win, or even if it is not forced if you have a good positional feature like an opponents king weak and exposed on the black squares, then you have to factor that in and would probably not resign. As a general rule I would not resign if I had any sort of initiative.

Saragossa
16-08-2009, 08:43 PM
Slightly off topic but still relevant I suppose. I think a little too much about whether you should resign at the beginning of a forced mate or let them play out their mate. Then just recently I realised how annoyed I get when people resign (Only for pretty combos) when I'm going to mate thus I've decided if they have a forced mate (or they have an unstoppable attack) then it's best for you to let them mate, just incase a pretty one crops up.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2009, 01:03 AM
In our game on the weekend I really appreciated it that I got to play 25...Nf4! when in a lot of games black would just resign on seeing that 24...Qg5+ wins a rook. But I don't think either of us had seen that ...Nf4 mates in advance. I spent quite a bit of time on it because I thought "hmmm, I'm going to be a real goose if this fails".

I let Alastair sac a queen and knight for mate as a cute way of resigning in a game in Launceston earlier this year. However that was only the third time I've been mated in a rated game (the other two - one I didn't see but I was losing anyway, and one my opponent was trying to win KQ vs K in a guillotine and got mate down with two seconds on his clock.)

Fischer was disgusted when one of the Byrnes resigned and stopped him from showing off his combo.

michael.mcguirk
27-12-2009, 09:27 PM
The big thing highlighted by people's responses of when swindles have happened, or people who have won when down material (non-sacrificed), is that they shown another weakness. When the original says 'all things being equal', it should also applied to all conditions that have impact on the game. If your opponents time is low, you won't resign. If your opponent has somewhere they need to be, such as making a train, you won't resign (unless you're nice :P). If your opponent gets outraged by you not resigning, hence making him emotionally out of control with the situation, then there is your compensation, and you play on.

People don't consider these factors when evaluating positions, but in a lot of games, the emotional impact of a move can be a significant part of it's impact. Why will people go for a sacrifical attack even if they're unsure whether it's sound or not? Because of the initiative and fear it can set into the opponent. Why will people who are winning obviously more often falter to situations where there is an unstoppable mate/material loss in a 3-move combo? Because they stop paying attention to their opponent's chances, because they believe they are winning.

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2009, 10:16 PM
When the original says 'all things being equal', it should also applied to all conditions that have impact on the game.

My intention is that it be applied in that manner. That it is the middlegame and there is no compensation are just examples, given that people will give different answers if it is move 5 or late in the ending or if there is real compensation.


If your opponents time is low, you won't resign.

That can depend how bad it is. Certainly because of increments I see people now resign positions they wouldn't have resigned in a G60 if the opponent had, say, four minutes left on the clock.


If your opponent gets outraged by you not resigning, hence making him emotionally out of control with the situation, then there is your compensation, and you play on.

Unless you know a particular opponent is prone to that, then I would consider that part of the question about when to resign. If someone reckons that playing on a rook down does quite often annoy the opponent into blundering and letting them back in the game, and if they have evidence for this view from their own games against at least semi-decent opposition, then that's a fair reason for not resigning at that stage.

The example I mentioned here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=196813&postcount=123) is one in which I got sloppy and blundered a whole queen in part because I was perplexed that the opponent was continuing to play on. But I don't know how common this sort of thing is.

michael.mcguirk
27-12-2009, 10:47 PM
Unless you know a particular opponent is prone to that, then I would consider that part of the question about when to resign. If someone reckons that playing on a rook down does quite often annoy the opponent into blundering and letting them back in the game, and if they have evidence for this view from their own games against at least semi-decent opposition, then that's a fair reason for not resigning at that stage.

The example I mentioned here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=196813&postcount=123) is one in which I got sloppy and blundered a whole queen in part because I was perplexed that the opponent was continuing to play on. But I don't know how common this sort of thing is.

Depending on how attuned you are to your opponent, you can usually read how people react to certain situations. You can tell if your opponent is scared, unsure, over-agressive, desparate, etc. It can be very unsettling to your opponent if they are unsure about endgames and you are down, but still playing on, showing no signs of worry about the position. Obviously not being cheerful and upbeat, but if you aren't phased by it, it can be very unsettling to the opponent.

Paul Cavezza
30-12-2009, 11:24 AM
Even for some Super-GM's... very.. very... very late!

[Event "London Classic"]
[Site "0:03:33-0:06:33"]
[Date "2009.12.08"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Luke McShane"]
[Black "Nigel Short"]
[ECO "C45"]
[WhiteElo "2615"]
[BlackElo "2707"]
[PlyCount "325"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 6.Qf3 bxc6
7.Nc3 d6 8.Qg3 Qg6 9.Bd3 a5 10.Bd2 Nf6 11.f3 Ba6 12.Ne2 Nd7
13.Bxa6 Rxa6 14.Qxg6 hxg6 15.Nf4 Bd4 16.Nd3 c5 17.c3 Bf6
18.O-O-O a4 19.Kc2 g5 20.h3 Be7 21.Nf2 Nf8 22.Ng4 Ne6 23.Ne3
f6 24.Nc4 Kf7 25.Be1 Nf4 26.Rd2 g6 27.Bg3 Nh5 28.Bh2 Ng7
29.Bg3 Nh5 30.Bh2 Ng7 31.Re1 Rb8 32.Rdd1 Rba8 33.Rd2 Rb8
34.Ra1 Rba8 35.Rc1 Rb8 36.Bg3 Nh5 37.Bh2 Ng7 38.Rg1 Rh8 39.Rf1
Rh7 40.Rd3 Rh8 41.Rdd1 Ne6 42.Rh1 Ng7 43.Rhe1 Rha8 44.Bg1 Ne6
45.Rd2 Rh8 46.Be3 Bf8 47.Rh1 Bg7 48.Rd5 Ke7 49.Rh2 Raa8 50.Rh1
Ra6 51.Rd2 Raa8 52.Re1 Ra6 53.Bf2 Raa8 54.Bg3 Ra6 55.Ne3 Kf7
56.Rd5 Bf8 57.Rdd1 Bg7 58.Rh1 Raa8 59.Rh2 Ra6 60.Rdh1 Raa8
61.h4 gxh4 62.Rxh4 Rxh4 63.Rxh4 Ra7 64.Rh1 Ra8 65.Bf2 Nf8
66.Be1 Ra7 67.Bd2 Ne6 68.Bc1 Ra8 69.Bd2 Rd8 70.Bc1 Re8 71.Rh4
Ra8 72.Kd3 Ra6 73.g3 Nf8 74.f4 Nd7 75.Rh2 Ra7 76.Bd2 Rb7
77.Be1 Bf8 78.g4 Kg7 79.Bg3 c6 80.f5 g5 81.Rd2 Nb6 82.Ke2 Rd7
83.b3 d5 84.c4 axb3 85.axb3 dxe4 86.Rxd7+ Nxd7 87.Bc7 Kf7
88.Nd1 Ke8 89.Nc3 Be7 90.Nxe4 Bd8 91.Nd6+ Ke7 92.Nc8+ Ke8
93.Nd6+ Ke7 94.Nc8+ Ke8 95.Bg3 Nb6 96.Nd6+ Kf8 97.Nb7 Ke8
98.Nxc5 Be7 99.Ne4 Kd8 100.Be1 Nd7 101.Bc3 c5 102.Bb2 Ke8
103.Kf2 Kd8 104.Kg2 Ke8 105.Kh3 Kf7 106.Kg3 Ke8 107.Bc3 Kd8
108.Kh3 Kc7 109.Bb2 Kc6 110.Nc3 Nb6 111.Kg3 Bd8 112.Kf3 Be7
113.Ke3 Bd8 114.Kd3 Be7 115.Ke4 Bd8 116.Nd5 Nd7 117.Bc3 Kd6
118.Be1 Kc6 119.Bg3 Nf8 120.Kd3 Nd7 121.Kc2 Nf8 122.Be1 Nd7
123.Bg3 Nf8 124.Kb2 Nd7 125.Ka3 Ba5 126.Ne7+ Kb6 127.Bd6 Ka6
128.Nd5 Bd8 129.Bg3 Ba5 130.Ka4 Bd2 131.Bc7 Bc1 132.Bd8 Bb2
133.b4 Bd4 134.b5+ Kb7 135.Kb3 Be5 136.Kc2 Bd4 137.Kb3 Be5
138.Be7 Bd4 139.Bd6 Bf2 140.Kc2 Ka7 141.Kd3 Kb7 142.Ke4 Bd4
143.Be7 Be5 144.Ne3 Bf4 145.Ng2 Bg3 146.Kd5 Bf2 147.Ke6 Ne5
148.Bxf6 Nxc4 149.Bxg5 Na3 150.f6 Bd4 151.f7 Bg7 152.Bf6 Bf8
153.Be7 Bg7 154.Bxc5 Nxb5 155.f8=Q Nc7+ 156.Kf7 Bxf8 157.Bxf8
Kc6 158.Nf4 Kd7 159. g5 Nb5 160. g6 Nd4 161.g7 Nf5 162. g8=Q
Nh6+ 163. Bxh6 1-0


For me when the position feels hopeless- anything significant in a closed position, personally I wouldn't play on a piece down and clearly lost if my only compensation was my opponents irritation I'm continuing. There's nothing positive in that, at our amateur level chess should not be so antagonistic and competitive.

Saragossa
30-12-2009, 03:52 PM
Depending on how attuned you are to your opponent, you can usually read how people react to certain situations. You can tell if your opponent is scared, unsure, over-agressive, desparate, etc. It can be very unsettling to your opponent if they are unsure about endgames and you are down, but still playing on, showing no signs of worry about the position. Obviously not being cheerful and upbeat, but if you aren't phased by it, it can be very unsettling to the opponent.


Michael raises a very good point. I have had endgames where I was clearly winning but my opponent defended my original aggression and even though I was still completely winning he remained un-fazed, this put me off immensly and he got a draw whilst he was two pawns down. In analysis I was finding it hard not to win!

antichrist
30-12-2009, 08:58 PM
would you believe I scrapped a draw being 3 pawns down plus bishop, I had a king and one or two trapped pawns - classic that was, that is why I don't resign

Kevin Bonham
30-12-2009, 09:09 PM
would you believe I scrapped a draw being 3 pawns down plus bishop, I had a king and one or two trapped pawns - classic that was, that is why I don't resign

What were (i) the strength of your opponent and (ii) the time control?

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2010, 01:17 PM
It took a second queen to make this one throw in the towel in an internet game under leisurely time limits:

[Date "2010.11.7 "]
[White "Sarfati_FM"]
[Black "hemlock"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2208"]
[BlackElo "1347"]
[Board "7155248"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bg4?! 5. dxe5 dxe5? 6. Qxd8+ Kxd8 7. Nxe5 Be6 8. Bg5 Be7 9. O-O-O Ke8 10. f3 h6 11. Be3 Nc6 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Ba6 Bb4 14. Bb7 Rb8 15. Bxc6 Kf8 16. Bxa7 Kg8?? 17. Bxb8 Ba5 18. Rd8+ Kh7 19. Rxh8+ Kxh8 20. Nd5 Bxd5 21. exd5 Bb6 22. b4 Be3 23. Kb1 Kh7 24. Bxc7 g5 25. d6 Bf4 26. b5 h5 27. b6 g4 28. b7 g3 29. hxg3 Bxg3 30. b8=Q h4 [still playing on ...] 31. d7 Bf2 32. d8=Q 1-0

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2011, 02:22 AM
The freak finish to my game tonight as mentioned on HICC thread. I was in time trouble (below 2 mins with 10 sec increment), opponent had half an hour.

1.Rf1 Rb8 [Apparently best for black here is 1...Nf4! 2.gxf4 Rxh3 3.fxe5 Rxh6 drawing] 2.Rb7 [Looks nice but I missed the simple 2.Rg5 which completely wins] 2...Rg8 3.Rff7 and Black studied the position for many minutes and resigned. But I have actually thrown away the remaining, less emphatic win with my last move [correct was 3.Kh1! forcing 3...Nf4 (3...Rxg3 4.Rf8+ Rg8 5.Bg7#)] and after 3...Rxg3+ 4.Kf1 Rcg2! I would not have had anything much as the bishop mate idea is stopped. After 5.Rb8+ [5.Rxh7+ Kg8 6.Rhf7 Rg1+ draw] 5...Rg8 6.Rxg8+ Rxg8 7.a5 Nb4 black would have to be careful but, a whole two pawns up, he should just be able to grovel a draw against the nasty a-pawn. An example line is 8.Ke2 Ra8 9.Rf8+ Rxf8 10.Bxf8 Na6 11.Kd3 Kg8 12.Bd6 e4+ 13.Kxe4 Kf7 14.Kd3 Ke8 15.Kc4 Kd7 16.Bxc5 Kc6 which must be drawn

The lesson from this one is that instead of resigning black should have played ...Rxg3+ then looked again to see if there was anything that could save. He might have found it. I had seen the save on his time but only after thinking for about seven minutes that I had a forced win when I had actually just objectively wasted it. :rolleyes:

Adamski
16-08-2011, 06:37 AM
One of Tartakower's great witticisms is that no one ever won a game by resigning. Thanks for that latest example Kev!

I note that the new World Junior champion Swiercz (spelling?) is another Pole.

Craig_Hall
16-08-2011, 11:33 AM
Having entered lots of superfluous moves into PGNs in my time, I sometimes wish players would resign earlier, and agree to draws earlier as well. Not that I begrudge playing on when there are still chances to save/win, but there's a line somewhere in there beyond which a lot of time is wasted for no gain.

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2011, 12:52 PM
Having entered lots of superfluous moves into PGNs in my time, I sometimes wish players would resign earlier, and agree to draws earlier as well. Not that I begrudge playing on when there are still chances to save/win, but there's a line somewhere in there beyond which a lot of time is wasted for no gain.

I totally sympathise. In the case of players - especially juniors - playing on endlessly in hopelessly lost positions (queen down for instance) that eventually turn out to be losses I think it's OK to curtail the PGN with a "... and black won" (or whatever).

At that Aus Junior I ran there was one quite strong (and not that young either) junior who insisted on playing on (rather slowly too) til mate whenever he was losing. Because of the one-minute increment he created a massive holdup on the double-round day and we actually had to have adults barricading the doors to the hall to stop juniors coming back in to start their next round games while this "game" was still in progress (and while the arbiters were doing the draw). This plus other incidents of silly resignations, silly non-resignations and silly draw offers led me to put the following in the bulletin's daily "Book of FIBE" reading:


A point is scored for results purposes only by the player whose opponent declares he or she resigns. It is absolutely forbidden to resign simply because one has a very lost position, and indeed in this case etiquette requires playing on so that bored IAs may moonlight as savage bouncers and the Tarkine may be logged to publish proof that future grandmasters could win King and lotsa big stuff vs King and a few specks of dust before their umpteen and a halfth birthday. Resignation is only allowed if (i) the position is a clearly drawn pawn ending and the opponent has just tried to Actually Do Something or (ii) you just kinda don’t like your position, not really sure why, just a kinda vague feeling of impending DOOOOOOOOM, um …

A draw may be offered only if your name is Andrew, your surname isn’t Brown or Pan and you are pretty much losing (in which case it must be accepted at once), or if you are on board 1, have had a spiffing day, and wish the gallery to be aware that the scary Under 12 World Champ isn’t gunna beat you after all. If the position is totally dead drawn, etiquette demands that whoever is to move must immediately panic and resign.

At the original Hobart club when I was a (late highschool age) junior, a schoolmate of mine was a reasonably strong junior but would absolutely never resign. When he was playing casual games in lost positions I would hide in an adjacent room then sneak in while he wasn't paying attention and steal his king. He would just go and find another and keep playing. In one such game I stockpiled five kings.

Adamski
16-08-2011, 12:58 PM
I totally sympathise. In the case of players - especially juniors - playing on endlessly in hopelessly lost positions (queen down for instance) that eventually turn out to be losses I think it's OK to curtail the PGN with a "... and black won" (or whatever).

At that Aus Junior I ran there was one quite strong (and not that young either) junior who insisted on playing on (rather slowly too) til mate whenever he was losing. Because of the one-minute increment he created a massive holdup on the double-round day and we actually had to have adults barricading the doors to the hall to stop juniors coming back in to start their next round games while this "game" was still in progress (and while the DOPs were doing the draw). This plus other incidents of silly resignations, silly non-resignations and silly draw offers led me to put the following in the bulletin's daily "Book of FIBE" reading:



At the original Hobart club when I was a (late highschool age) junior, a schoolmate of mine was a reasonably strong junior but would absolutely never resign. When he was playing casual games in lost positions I would hide in an adjacent room then sneak in while he wasn't paying attention and steal his king. He would just go and find another and keep playing. In one such game I stockpiled five kings.
:P at the KB wise words! I sympasthise too - I have been a DOP (we never called it arbiter then) in days past.

machomortensen
18-08-2011, 09:23 PM
A great thread... A lots of interesting points of view.

Our danish hero Bent Larsen use to say - and he was probably mainly talking about stronger players - that one should only resign when he/she was sure that even weakest spectator could understand why the game was resigned.

Adamski
19-08-2011, 12:43 AM
My opponent at Parramatta tonight (Round 1 of the FIDE rated under 1800 event) could have resigned much earlier then he did. First he was 2 pieces and a pawn down, then he was 2 pieces and 2 pawns and a Rook down (!) and then he was faced with forced mate and played on right up to ...h6 mate!
(He took 25 minutes over an only move in a 90 minutes plus 30 sec increment for the entire game time limit.)
The result of this is that I am late home tonight / this morning...

Max Illingworth
19-08-2011, 01:01 AM
My game against Moulthun from this year's Australian Open is relevant to this thread (I was White):

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. Qd2 b5 8. f3 Nbd7 9. g4 Nb6 10. O-O-O Bb7 11. Bd3 Nfd7 12. Kb1 Rc8 13. g5 Ne5 14. Qe1 Be7 15. h4 Nec4 16. Bc1 d5 17. exd5 Nxd5 18. Nxd5 Bxd5 19. Be4 O-O 20. g6 Bxe4 21.gxf7+ Rxf7 22. Qxe4 Qd5 23. Nxe6 Qxe4 24. fxe4 Rc6 25. Nd4 Rc8 26. Nf5 Bf8 27.Rhg1 Rfc7 28. Bf4 Ra7 29. h5 Kf7 30. Rgf1 Ke8 31. c3 g6 32. hxg6 hxg6 33. Nd6+ Bxd6 34. Bxd6 Rf7 35. Rh1 Rc6 36. Rh8+ Kd7 37. Bc5+ Kc7 38. Ra8 Rf4 39. Ra7+ Kb8 40. Rd8+ Rc8 41. Rxc8+ Kxc8 42. Rxa6 Rxe4 43. b3 Ne5 44. Re6 g5 45. Bd4 Nf3 46. Rxe4 Nd2+ 47. Kc2 Nxe4 48. Kd3 Nd6 49. Be3 Nf7 50. Ke4 Kb7 51. Kd5 g4 52.Ke6 Nd8+ 53. Kf5 g3 54. Kg4 g2 55. Kf3 Kc6 56. Kxg2 Kd5 57. Kf3 Nc6 58. Bd2 Ne5+ 59. Kf4 Nd3+ 60. Ke3 Nc5 61. Bc1 Ne4 62. Bb2 Nd6 63. Ba3 Nf7 64. Bf8 Ne5 65. Bg7 Nf7 66. Kd3 Nd6 67. Kc2 Nf5 68. Bf6 Ke6 69. Bh8 Kd5 70. Kb2 Ne7 71. Kc2 Nc8 72. Kd3 Nd6 73. Bg7 Nb7 74. Bd4 Nd6 75. Be3 Nb7 76. a4 bxa4 77. c4+ Kc6 78.b4 a3 79. b5+ Kd6 80. Kc2 Na5 81. c5+ Kd5 82. Kb1 Nb7 83. c6 Nd6 84. c7 Nc8 85.
b6 Kc6 86. Bc5 {In this position Black resigned, but in fact the position is a
draw:} (86. Bc5 Kb7 87. Ka2 Kc6 88. Kxa3 Kb7 89. Ka4 Kc6 90. Ka5 Kb7 91. Kb5
Ka8 92. Kc6 {and Black looks dead, but he has the drawing resource} Nxb6 $3 {
when both ways of capturing the knight lead to stalemate. Then White cannot
win, e.g.} 93. Kb5 Nc8 94. Ka6 Nb6 95. Kb5 Nc8 96. Be3 Kb7 {. It was claimed
in a number of reports that Stephen Solomon was the first to demonstrate this
draw. What happened is that I saw the idea of ...Nxb6 just after playing Bc5,
then after Moulthun resigned, I asked him why he didn't play on, demonstrating
the same variation with ...Nxb6. Stephen and I then tried to find for a win
for White, but quickly realised that Black can just keep playing ...Nc8-b6 if
White keeps his king on c6 or a6, and if White moves his king away then ...Kb7
is an obvious draw.}) 1-0

Capablanca-Fan
21-08-2011, 05:53 AM
My game against Moulthun from this year's Australian Open is relevant to this thread (I was White):

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. Qd2 b5 8. f3 Nbd7 9. g4 Nb6 10. O-O-O Bb7 11. Bd3 Nfd7 12. Kb1 Rc8 13. g5 Ne5 14. Qe1 Be7 15. h4 Nec4 16. Bc1 d5 17. exd5 Nxd5 18. Nxd5 Bxd5 19. Be4 O-O 20. g6 Bxe4 21.gxf7+ Rxf7 22. Qxe4 Qd5 23. Nxe6 Qxe4 24. fxe4 Rc6 25. Nd4 Rc8 26. Nf5 Bf8 27.Rhg1 Rfc7 28. Bf4 Ra7 29. h5 Kf7 30. Rgf1 Ke8 31. c3 g6 32. hxg6 hxg6 33. Nd6+ Bxd6 34. Bxd6 Rf7 35. Rh1 Rc6 36. Rh8+ Kd7 37. Bc5+ Kc7 38. Ra8 Rf4 39. Ra7+ Kb8 40. Rd8+ Rc8 41. Rxc8+ Kxc8 42. Rxa6 Rxe4 43. b3 Ne5 44. Re6 g5 45. Bd4 Nf3 46. Rxe4 Nd2+ 47. Kc2 Nxe4 48. Kd3 Nd6 49. Be3 Nf7 50. Ke4 Kb7 51. Kd5 g4 52.Ke6 Nd8+ 53. Kf5 g3 54. Kg4 g2 55. Kf3 Kc6 56. Kxg2 Kd5 57. Kf3 Nc6 58. Bd2 Ne5+ 59. Kf4 Nd3+ 60. Ke3 Nc5 61. Bc1 Ne4 62. Bb2 Nd6 63. Ba3 Nf7 64. Bf8 Ne5 65. Bg7 Nf7 66. Kd3 Nd6 67. Kc2 Nf5 68. Bf6 Ke6 69. Bh8 Kd5 70. Kb2 Ne7 71. Kc2 Nc8 72. Kd3 Nd6 73. Bg7 Nb7 74. Bd4 Nd6 75. Be3 Nb7 76. a4 bxa4 77. c4+ Kc6 78.b4 a3 79. b5+ Kd6 80. Kc2 Na5 81. c5+ Kd5 82. Kb1 Nb7 83. c6 Nd6 84. c7 Nc8 85.
b6 Kc6 86. Bc5 {In this position Black resigned, but in fact the position is a
draw:} (86. Bc5 Kb7 87. Ka2 Kc6 88. Kxa3 Kb7 89. Ka4 Kc6 90. Ka5 Kb7 91. Kb5
Ka8 92. Kc6 {and Black looks dead, but he has the drawing resource} Nxb6 $3 {
when both ways of capturing the knight lead to stalemate. Then White cannot
win, e.g.} 93. Kb5 Nc8 94. Ka6 Nb6 95. Kb5 Nc8 96. Be3 Kb7 {. It was claimed
in a number of reports that Stephen Solomon was the first to demonstrate this
draw. What happened is that I saw the idea of ...Nxb6 just after playing Bc5,
then after Moulthun resigned, I asked him why he didn't play on, demonstrating
the same variation with ...Nxb6. Stephen and I then tried to find for a win
for White, but quickly realised that Black can just keep playing ...Nc8-b6 if
White keeps his king on c6 or a6, and if White moves his king away then ...Kb7
is an obvious draw.}) 1-0
Good grief; no point even maneuvring the K to d7/d8, because Black can simply drop back with ... Ka8, when Kxc8 is stalemate too.

rqbxo
28-08-2011, 03:18 PM
I suppose that this overlaps into swindle discussions. But it is also relevant to the topic. I was about to resign about 10 moves off the end of this game [obviously!!!] but then I remembered a page I had looked at earlier in the day in the Fine book about stalemate draws by your king being in the corner behind a pawn. So, I decided that I would play on and battle to the end with valour, gallantry, courage and honour. :lol:

I rushed my king towards the corner of the board quicker than a tax evasion scam artist heads to the Swiss bank account :lol:

I thought at the time surely nobody can be THAT daft to allow me to draw here?

Imagine my absolute disbelief when he fell for it...I imagine that he might have hurled his mouse and chair across the room in disgust. It was also the worst game throughout that I have played. To say that I played like a Patzer would be flattering - I played like a half-drunk baboon who was smoking the strong stuff and deciding to inhale.

I really should have resigned. But I didn't. Half a point is half a point...
Event: rated standard match
Site: Free Internet Chess Server
Date: 2011.08.19
Round: ?
White: jesusisblack
Black: linuxblue
Result: *
WhiteElo: 1569
BlackElo: 1682
ECO: B00
TimeControl: 900

1. e4 d6 2. c4 e5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f4 Nc6 5. Nge2 Be7 6. f5 Bd7 7. g3 Nb4 8. Ng1
c5 9. a3 Nc6 10. d3 Nd4 11. Nge2 Nf3+ 12. Kf2 Nd4 13. Nxd4 cxd4 14. Ne2 Qb6
15. b4 O-O 16. h4 Ng4+ 17. Kf3 Ne3 18. Bxe3 dxe3 19. Qc1 g6 20. Qxe3 Qxe3+
21. Kxe3 gxf5 22. Bg2 Kh8 23. Bh3 f4+ 24. gxf4 Bxh3 25. Rxh3 Rg8 26. fxe5
dxe5 27. Rg1 Rxg1 28. Nxg1 Rg8 29. Nf3 f6 30. Rh1 Rg3 31. h5 a5 32. c5 axb4
33. axb4 Kg7 34. Rg1 Rxg1 35. Nxg1 Kh6 36. d4 exd4+ 37. Kxd4 Kxh5 38. Kd5 Kg6
39. Ke6 Bd8 40. Kd7 f5 41. exf5+ Kxf5 42. Kxd8 Ke6 43. Kc7 Kd5 44. Kxb7 h5
45. c6 h4 46. c7 h3 47. c8=Q h2 48. Qd8+ Ke4 49. Qe7+ Kf4 50. Qf6+ Kg3 51.
Qg5+ Kf2 52. Qc5+ Kg2 53. Qg5+ Kh1 54. Nf3 *

rqbxo
28-08-2011, 04:03 PM
I don't know how replies work. But I will say in response to the Bjelbrk Watson game earlier in the thread that it's interesting. In that it shows IMHO the psychology of being too visual and not general enough. It needed more of my sort of thinking! Instead of lines start off with "isn't that white king a bit hemmed in and ciuld there be a mating net...? For me a mating net there would ALWAYS be worth a look at. I would never resign in such a position without having a look at all sacs there first. I find that resignation pretty amazing. Even if Watson didn't see anything specific to a conclusion you would think at least fling something at the white king - you never know. Amazing.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2011, 05:37 PM
I don't know how replies work.

Pressing the quote button on the post you wish to reply to will bring up that post in quote tags and you can then reply below the quote tags.

If quoting a long post for a short reply it is best to:

* edit the quoted post down so you are just quoting the bit you wish to reply to

and/or

* manually insert quote and /quote tags in the same form that come up when you press the quote button, so that you break the post into sections and reply to each section individually.

Another option is to simply give the number of the post you are replying to, eg "Re #456," without actually quoting any of it.

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2011, 12:03 PM
1QR2rk1/P4pp1/7p/4P2P/8/5NP1/q4PK1/1q6 b - - 0 1

Howell (black) resigned with two queens against Kramnik in the London Classic here, missing chances to stay in the game after 1...Qf1+ 2.Kxf1 Qa6+ 3.Kg2 Rxc8 4.Nd4 and white should win but it may not be straightforward. Article here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/dec/19/chess-ronan-bennett-daniel-king?newsfeed=true)

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2012, 04:12 PM
Good example posted by stevenaaus of Felix Wyss apparently resigning prematurely vs David Beaumont here:

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=341487#post341487

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 O-O 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Nbd7 8.f3 Ne8 9. g4 Bh6 10.Bf2 c5 11.Bd3 a6 12.a4 Qa5 13.h4 Bf4 14.Ne2 Qb4 15.Qc2 Nc7 16. O-O Rb8 17.a5 b5 18.Nxb5 axb5 19.Be1 bxc4 20.Bxb4 cxd3 21.Qxd3 Ba6 22.Qc2 Rxb4 23.Rfb1 Be3+ 24.Kg2 Rfb8 25.Nc3 Bd4 26.Nd1 Rb3 27.Ra3 Bd3 ( 27...Bd3 28.Qxb3 Rxb3 29.Rxb3 Bxb1 30.Rb7 Kg7 31.Rxc7 Nb8 32.Rc8 Na6 33.Rc6 Nb4 34.Rxd6 Bd3 35.Rd8 f5 36. Nf2 fxe4 37.fxe4 Ba6 38.Rd7+ Kf8 39.b3 h5 40.Kf3 Ke8 41.Rg7 ) 0-1

moremover
15-05-2013, 09:33 PM
1QR2rk1/P4pp1/7p/4P2P/8/5NP1/q4PK1/1q6 b - - 0 1

Howell (black) resigned with two queens against Kramnik in the London Classic here, missing chances to stay in the game after 1...Qf1+ 2.Kxf1 Qa6+ 3.Kxg2 Rxc8 4.Nd4 and white should win but it may not be straightforward. Article here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/dec/19/chess-ronan-bennett-daniel-king?newsfeed=true)

... "missing chances to stay in the game" ? ...
... "but it may not be straightforward" ? ...

... you forget that your sight is not the sight of an 2600-elo-player like David , who saw that the knight is winning the game ...

kindly regards from Germany

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2013, 09:53 PM
... you forget that your sight is not the sight of an 2600-elo-player like David , who saw that the knight is winning the game ...


And you forget that this was not just "my" sight but Daniel King's in the link. King is not a 2600 but he is not that far short (he is a GM after all), although it doesn't mean he was necessarily right in assuming Howell did not see that line.

So do you know whether Howell actually stated at any time later that he saw the line?

There are two separate questions here. The first is whether it is a win for white with best play, and I don't think there's much doubt it is. The second is whether it is so hopelessly and clearly lost that a top-class GM has no swindling chances at all and should resign.

moremover
16-05-2013, 01:02 AM
And you forget that this was not just "my" sight but Daniel King's in the link. King is not a 2600 but he is not that far short (he is a GM after all), although it doesn't mean he was necessarily right in assuming Howell did not see that line.

So do you know whether Howell actually stated at any time later that he saw the line?

There are two separate questions here. The first is whether it is a win for white with best play, and I don't think there's much doubt it is. The second is whether it is so hopelessly and clearly lost that a top-class GM has no swindling chances at all and should resign.

... "straightforward" was not the term of Daniel , but yours ...
... and a good player like David ( of course not you ) should resign in this position and so he did very well:clap: in giving up - only no waste of time to play longer ...

Desmond
16-05-2013, 07:23 AM
... "straightforward" was not the term of Daniel , but yours ...
... and a good player like David ( of course not you ) should resign in this position and so he did very well:clap: in giving up - only no waste of time to play longer ...
He should resign if, as Daniel King stated, he missed the best defence. Are you saying he saw it?

"a White victory... is by no means easy to force", but hey a good player should just resign when things start going a bit rough, right?

Kevin Bonham
16-05-2013, 09:40 AM
... "straightforward" was not the term of Daniel , but yours ...

King said " I would still put money on a White victory, but it is by no means easy to force." What I said: "white should win but it may not be straightforward" means exactly the same thing.


... and a good player like David ( of course not you ) should resign in this position and so he did very well:clap: in giving up - only no waste of time to play longer ...

OK so you do not know whether he saw the line or not.

I suggest that no player of any standard should feel obliged to resign in such a position if he had seen the line in question. The end position is just not that simple. If there was an obvious way to force conversion to an ending a piece up that would be different. Bear in mind that his opponent (Kramnik) while a very great player is also someone who once lost to a computer by overlooking mate in 1.

A general comment (as a poster and not as a moderator) : I appreciated your correction to my 9-years old analysis of a position on another thread but in general I do not like the demeaning tone of your comments especially since they appear in this case to lack substance.

pax
16-05-2013, 07:13 PM
Maybe moremover is David Howell, and he's trolling ya!

moremover
16-05-2013, 09:45 PM
Maybe moremover is David Howell, and he's trolling ya!

... "moremover" is "Lutz Neweklowsky" ... search under these names for example at youtube and facebook
for a free:clap: internet and kindly regards
Lutz Neweklowsky
Drais-1
76135 Karlsruhe
Germany
Fax : 0049-721-841095
E-Mail : lutz.neweklowsky@gmx.de

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2015, 06:39 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?16038-Politiken-Cup-Denmark&p=399094&viewfull=1#post399094

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2017, 12:16 AM
http://www.chesskids.com.au/rjs-chess-puzzle-291/

Great example by jammo from the Chess Kids nationals.

Kaitlin
12-02-2017, 09:06 AM
...but if checkmate is certain you can sac all your pieces in a euthanasia preempt.

(Also you can move to set up checkmate in one, this will show if your playing a computer or not, as computers will try to promote a pawn rather then do the checkmate move)

MichaelBaron
12-02-2017, 10:23 AM
http://www.chesskids.com.au/rjs-chess-puzzle-291/

Great example by jammo from the Chess Kids nationals.
More like an example of both players ...still learning how to play chess :)

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2017, 10:39 AM
More like an example of both players ...still learning how to play chess :)

Even though it's a forced mate in 2, I could credit that it might be missed by some players at club level, especially with only 1 minute on the clock.

Trent Parker
13-02-2017, 12:23 PM
Yesterday I saw two players low on time.

White has a pawn on h7, King h8 and a rook on the board
Black has A king on b2, pawn on a2, had already promoted a pawn to a Queen and also had a Rook that was on the first rank.

IIRC higher rated plalyer was white. I would probably have resigned a while ago as white......

was watching the game thinking Rh1 not g1, Rook h1 not g1....... Guess where the guy moved to.......Rg1 and perpie all the way........... Draw was the result.

Kaitlin
19-02-2017, 12:43 PM
It's government policy that you have to be well into your 90's plus before you will be eligible to resign ! :cool:

claranow
28-05-2017, 05:54 AM
Some time ago I was told the stupidest thing as to that submitting to resign is a pebble decision for female players only.
I mean. ...
For me, when the game is clearly lost by an imminent mate, there is no point in wasting the time on waltzing with King one step left, one step right.

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2017, 06:32 PM
This example of a missed swindle posted on David Smerdon's blog appears to be a case of resigning (and flagging at the same time) in a drawn position:

http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1954

See detailed lines in comments too. I haven't been able to find a way out of it.

Capablanca-Fan
07-10-2017, 01:23 AM
IM H.C. van Riemsdijk — R.W. Smith, George Trundle Masters, R7:

8/8/8/8/1k6/p7/Kp6/1Rr5 w - - 0 1

White resigned in this position. But he had nothing to lose by playing 71.Rxc1, because 71... bxc1=Q or R gives stalemate. Of course, an underpromotion to B or N wins easily.

Kevin Bonham
25-12-2017, 07:41 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?16994-2017-Chess-Artists-Open&p=433310&viewfull=1#post433310

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2018, 12:08 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?17305-FIDE-World-Womens-Nov-2-23-Khanty-Mansiysk&p=442299&viewfull=1#post442299

Abdumalik resigns because she is going to be mated, but could play one more move then claim a draw by 50 moves instead.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2019, 09:30 AM
Giri - Shankland

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?17450-Tata-Steel-2019&p=444884&viewfull=1#post444884

8/1p6/1P6/3k1K2/1P6/4B2n/8/8 b - - 0 45

MichaelBaron
26-01-2019, 09:50 AM
It does happen after a long game. Sometimes even obvious things skip our attention.

ElevatorEscapee
27-01-2019, 11:26 PM
It does happen after a long game. Sometimes even obvious things skip our attention.
To be fair, the draw from the final position is not obvious.

1) The White bishop is scoping the Black Knight.
2) On the move, it looks like Black must retreat his king to a worse square (c6, d6, c4), allowing 47... Kg4, winning the knight.
3) It is not obvious how the Black King makes the save.

MichaelBaron
28-01-2019, 12:26 AM
To be fair, the draw from the final position is not obvious.

1) The White bishop is scoping the Black Knight.
2) On the move, it looks like Black must retreat his king to a worse square (c6, d6, c4), allowing 47... Kg4, winning the knight.
3) It is not obvious how the Black King makes the save.

Depends, if you are playing a tournament game and exhausted or treating it as a problem to solve. I think if told ''black to move and draw'' - probably all 2000+ players will find it comfortably...and eventually 1800+ as well... but under tournament conditions, this is of course a different story!

ER
28-01-2019, 07:48 PM
Well, I was in a very bad position (not exactly resignable but close) in three
of my games during the MCC Australian Day weekender that just finished.

I held on believing in my fighting spirit and
the principle of "tactics occur in the endgames too"

I won all three of them including the one against
Richard Voon who came out with all guns firing
to smash me!

I will post critical positions later on tonight or tomorrow.

In the last couple of months we have played three games
with Voonie, I am 2-1 up!

MichaelBaron
29-01-2019, 12:07 AM
Well, I was in a very bad position (not exactly resignable but close) in three
of my games during the MCC Australian Day weekender that just finished.

I held on believing in my fighting spirit and
the principle of "tactics occur in the endgames too"

I won all three of them including the one against
Richard Voon who came out with all guns firing
to smash me!

I will post critical positions later on tonight or tomorrow.

In the last couple of months we have played three games
with Voonie, I am 2-1 up!
One may say that he is getting old...but then again age-wise he is not that far ahead of you so well-done!

ER
30-01-2019, 10:07 AM
Black to play ...

3735

In this position Black (myself) is much worse - almost to the point of resigning to a much stronger player - R. Voon. Never losing my fighting spirit
and painstakingly looking for good moves though I actually discovered one!!!
Actually I win a piece, and if my opponent plays indifferently he gets checkmated in one!!! This sequence obviously lifted me psychologically
while discouraging Richard who began playing badly and consequently lost the game!

From MCC Australian Day W/ender

Desmond
30-01-2019, 11:15 AM
...Kd4 and if the white knight moves, ...Nc5 is mate.

Patrick Byrom
30-01-2019, 03:13 PM
Even without the tactic I wouldn't be resigning yet - Black's pieces are significantly more active, which is some compensation for the material deficit.

Adamski
30-01-2019, 06:38 PM
rr is of course correct with his simple solution above.

Adamski
30-01-2019, 06:42 PM
Great fighting spirit by ER to win 3 games that he was losing. Support for - in the poll - not pulling the plug too early (like, in my opinion, at the leading option of a"mere" piece down). I think a Rook down and it's time to topple over the KIng (ceteris paribus of course, like no strong attack for the Rook e.g.).

Kevin Bonham
06-03-2019, 12:36 PM
Caruana resigns won position in blitz game:

http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2019/03/one-pig.html

Adamski
06-03-2019, 05:44 PM
Caruana resigns won position in blitz game:

http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2019/03/one-pig.htmlOh dear! My dad taught me early: "Never miss a check. It might be mate." (In short order.)

Kevin Bonham
06-03-2019, 06:31 PM
62.Qb4+ doesn't mate quickly with best play but it does win the bishop.

Desmond
07-03-2019, 07:58 AM
Very simple automatic move, surprised he didn't play it. But it was game 20, so maybe that explains it.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2021, 05:02 PM
http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2021/05/always-double-check.html

Desmond
19-05-2021, 05:56 PM
http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2021/05/always-double-check.htmlNot sure what the ratings of the juniors were, but this shouldn't be too hard should it? White has only 2 moves Kxh7 or h5. Pretty easy to see 1. h5 Kg4, 2.Kxh7 Kxh5 is hopeless, so only 1.Kxh7 is left, even if you don't see the second move yet why not play it? I guess that was Shaun's point.

MichaelBaron
20-05-2021, 04:58 PM
''All other things being equal'' - is sometimes hard to assess :)