Are you good at resigning?

@ReallyLowELO said in #20:
> Nah just never resign. I was playing a 2100 FIDE rated player OTB (400 higher than me), who blundered mate in one up loads of material when I only had a rook, so anything can happen. Even as @aerosol2505 says, ‘2000s being down a piece with zero compensation, resign’, have you actually ever tried playing through a game in that position? Because chances happen surprisingly often.

I overlooked this earlier. Im usually a late resigner, and yes I know that just the psychological thought of "Im a piece up I have to win now" sometimes makes players passive, not wanting to risk anything and allow counterplay etc. However, I was more specifically talking about endgames here. if youre in a Bishop and 6 pawns vs 6 pawns endgame, youre relatively free to resign.

For your 2100 FIDE opponent, i assume thats in huge timetrouble while blitzing? Thats a whole different story, but for classical games this should not happen to any 2100 FIDE for that matter. In blitz youre very free to NOT resign if your opponent only has 2 seconds on the clock obviously - it falls under the same rule of thumb as above "Only Resign when you are 100% confident there is no chance for your opponent to mess up." Afterall, time is a piece sometimes, and being up a piece with no time makes people struggle.

No draw nor stalemate ever came from resigning.

How much time did the student have when he lost his Rook?

@aerosol2505 said in #31
> For your 2100 FIDE opponent, i assume thats in huge timetrouble while blitzing? Thats a whole different story, but for classical games this should not happen to any 2100 FIDE for that matter. In blitz youre very free to NOT resign if your opponent only has 2 seconds on the clock obviously - it falls under the same rule of thumb as above "Only Resign when you are 100% confident there is no chance for your opponent to mess up." Afterall, time is a piece sometimes, and being up a piece with no time makes people struggle.

Yeah I get this but he had 3 minutes left and I only had a rook left, so doesn’t quite match that. I know I’m in the minority, but the way I see it, you lose 100% the games you resign.

@ReallyLowELO said in #34:
> @aerosol2505 said in #31
>
>
> Yeah I get this but he had 3 minutes left and I only had a rook left, so doesn’t quite match that. I know I’m in the minority, but the way I see it, you lose 100% the games you resign.

Yes, however you also spend ressources on 1/1000 positions, where mentally - especially inmidst tournaments - youre sometimes better off just resigning and take the break to rest before the next round.

For me theres another point: I dont nessecarily play for the result, and a 1/1000 miracle draw doesnt really give me joy as i know i have not deserved that, and it was lucky afterall (huge discussion if you can be lucky in chess, but i think speaking of that 1/1000 blunders yeah, you gotta be lucky). So i rather save my time & ressources, if its not a hugely important game, as I enjoy the beauty of the game itself, and dont really want to suffer until the end for the average 0.0005 points (1/1000 draw save).

0.0005 points just dont seem to be worth my time and struggle.

@AGX111 said in #24:
> I decided to let an opponent play to checkmate the other day because his attack had been quite beautiful and I felt it deserved to be played to its conclusion. I thought that was a sign of respect for the game he had just played. Turns out it properly upset him, to the point he interjected to angrily to 'show' me the mate on my move, thinking I hadn't seen it, shouting 'it's obvious'! Go figure.

I have done the same once, they had an opportunity to play the textbook smothered mate after a beautiful attack. So I let them play it out on the board and they seemed appreciative. I think most people would be happy to play out their beautiful checkmate, especially if you praise them after the game and say you thought it deserved to be put on the board.

There are certain codes of conduct in sports and games. Not resigning when you are dead lost is disrespectful to the opponent. Too many “bums” play on when they’re dead lost hoping for that flag. Before clocks were brought into the game, bums would sit and not make a move hoping to avoid defeat. The modern bum tries to flag a queen down, thinking that what they’re doing is skillful. To paraphrase Kramnik, they should slap a clock as fast as they can and leave the chessboard and pieces as far from them as possible. The only exception that I can think of is some young and developing player who could maybe learn from having the winning technique demonstrated.

I agree that playing on when the only thing left to do is try to flag the opponent is disrespectful. However, one should keep in mind there are a lot of theoretical draws or even wins where one side is up a piece or more (e.g. 2 knights can't mate a lone king, a single minor with no pawns remaining, the wrong-colored bishop + h pawn vs lone king, a knight vs a far advanced pawn if the king is too far to assist, two connected passed pawns on the sixth vs a rook is even winning, etc.). I see nothing wrong with playing on when some of these drawing resources are still possible.

For example, look at the following position that occurred recently in a lonewolf game with 30 sec increment;



Black resigned because they were going to lose the piece. However, the game is still drawn! After 61... h5! 62. d7 g4! 63. hxg4 hxg4 64. d8=Q Bxd8 65. Bxd8 white is up a piece but cannot win because white has the wrong-colored bishop.

Both me and my opponent missed this (I thought I was completely winning).

I think as long as drawing resources are possible in the position, I see nothing wrong with playing on, especially in a classical time format where flagging is not really an issue.

Dont give up to fast thats not to good. Altough i can understand the frustration sometimes.
What i hate more is quick draws at chess club where people agree their draw, or a good player offers a draw fast against a weaker opponent.