 | Chess Strategies |
Vote and you will discover!
Funny name, real interests
Funny name, real interests
corannulene
♡ 79 ( +1 | -1 )
When to resign a �lost� game? Numerous times while reading these forums, I have
come across the comment that a person who does
not resign a �lost� position is somehow participating
in unsportsmanlike conduct. It has been implied by
some that to make your opponent play through
many �unnecessary� moves is somehow rude. I,
however, have always been of the opinion that the
game is not over until the fat lady sings. In many
�won� endgames a single incorrect move can mean
the difference between a win and a stalemate. That
being said, I do understand that on a site where
each move can take 3 days or more, 20 additional
moves can extend the length of a game by 2 or
more months. So at what point should one resign a
�lost� game?
More: Chess
philaretus
♡ 5 ( +1 | -1 )
Simple.... .....at the point when you believe you have lost.
More: Online Chess Games
tulkos
♡ 13 ( +1 | -1 )
it depends, if you are a lower rated player,playing on may be good practice in the endgame.but if you are both higher rated and the win is clear,resigning is a god thing too do.
More: Chess Openings
brunetti
♡ 71 ( +1 | -1 )
When he thinks that his opponent will win easily, and there're no pratical chances for him to blunder. This is opponent's dependant: if I play Kasparov I would probably resign after losing a pawn with no compensation, or even after gotten an unpleasant bind, with a cramped position. Because I trust Kasparov's strength, knowing that he will win the position, even blindfolded. If I play a 500 rated player, even after losing the Queen (if it would happen), I will play on, because I don't trust his ability. But if we were in an endgame, he King and two rooks and me King and one Bishop, there's no point in playing on, since I would trust anyone to win this kind of position.
Alex
More: Free Chess Game
markarian
♡ 18 ( +1 | -1 )
in my opinion resign a "lost" game when you think that its a waste of brains and/or a waste of time
it's not always the win which counts, it is the way you use your brains which counts
markarian
More: Chess History
frodan
♡ 38 ( +1 | -1 )
...quoting.... ...".I,however, have always been of the opinion that the game is not over until the fat lady sings."says corannulene.forgive my ignorance but ive never been sang to by any ladies,fat or otherwise while playing chess.also,i wud think this might disturb one's concentration,do please enlighten me.....
More: Mario Chess
victord
♡ 69 ( +1 | -1 )
...---... American humoUr.
This saying came from Phillidelpha I believe.
Could be wrong but this is how I heard it.
In the city of Phil. in days past when there was a large sporting event Kate Smith (a VERY large lady) would sing "God Bless America" when the game was over for the fans.
Hence, "the games not over 'til the fat lady sings" became a saying that stuck and is used (usually) to denote....the games not over yet because I haven't heard her sing yet!!!
Hope that helps. I may be wrong and the saying is older than that.......
Anyone?!?!?
victord
More: Chess Peices
frodan
♡ 14 ( +1 | -1 )
..thanks... ...victord.however,i wud not mind being sang to by Alexandra Kostenuik...... :))
binkers
♡ 47 ( +1 | -1 )
great example of when to resign! Hi Eric & all; take a look at this position as a perfect example of total fruitlessness in carrying on, time to resign!
bd=game_294817
(hmmm, how does this direct link thing work?)
I told him I am going to pin his K in with my R, and take the easy way out, just pushing my a/b P's down till they are promoted.
the chance of stalemate is zippo, IMHO.
I suggested he resign, but he is continuing to make 1 move every 2 days. OK with me, but what a waste of time!
Vern
taoistlunatic
keiserpaul
♡ 14 ( +1 | -1 )
blinkers In cases like yours, I suggest you promote all your pawns into rooks. It's a nice picture to have six rooks on the board !
cairo
♡ 17 ( +1 | -1 )
Whenever I see players behave like that, I put them on my NO PLAY LIST :-))
Best wishes
Cairo
theparrothead
♡ 72 ( +1 | -1 )
Good topic. I've struggled with the when to resign dilemma as well. My talent level is such where I don't like to resign at any point because one (among others) of my weak parts of my chess game is how to close. So in my case I will play out the moves to see if I can learn anything on closing regardless of how elementary it may seem. I play on this site to learn as much as I can about playing chess and I figure I can't learn anything by quitting.
When in doubt I think the best thing to do is ask your opponent if you're in a situation where you think it's useless to continue on. Good players more often than not will accept a resignation and the lesser players should probably play it out and learn something.
binkers
♡ 22 ( +1 | -1 )
theparrothead yes, I like your style, and all you say applies to *many* if not most endgames, where you are down a P or piece. but when you have nothing left, and the opponent has all, what can you learn by continuing? did you look at the game in question?
Vern
refutor
♡ 21 ( +1 | -1 )
game in question if someone could compile a list of people who play on until mate...i would like to ignore them right away and avoid the whole 3 pawns, bishop and king v. king situation :)
theparrothead
♡ 99 ( +1 | -1 )
binkers,
I did not look at your game that was used as an example when I made my post. My post was based on the experiences that I have had. Having now looked at your game in specific and how many pieces you're up and seeing that you're 17-0 I can understand your frustration. As much as resigning would eat at me, even I would resign in that situation.
It's funny, I played a sport competetively through college and the one thing your taught is never to quit no matter the score. If you quit, it's a display of poor sportsmanship. I'm learning in chess there's a fine line between playing until the "fat lady sings" and being sensible when the game is wrapped up and wasting each other's time. I'm just still adjusting to being a good sport by resigning when the game is unquestionably in hand. I guess more than anything else, I just don't like to quit what's started. It's good to know that it is o.k. to resign if it's a completely one sided match.
ravendon
♡ 400 ( +1 | -1 )
When to resign There is an art to resigning, just as there is an art to chess in general. Just like art, resigning a game that you and your opponent have spent days creating is difficult to gauge. You can take into consideration the strength of your opponent and make assumptions about the position and his ability to develop a meaningful plan to gain the point. For example, in this game, board #320616, after whites 13. Qf3, I blanked out and didn't see that my knight was attacked and moved, 13... Bg6. It wasn't until the next day when I went back to the board and saw his capture that I realized, to my horror, that I had simply dropped a whole piece to him. He was higher rated then I was, but the rating is only particular to this board. I'm an experienced OTB player and a USCF member and have played in many over the board tourneys and I'm also one of the fastest blitz players in my state and have achieved a rank of Master. Having played a few games on here, I feel that the rankings are about 400 to 600 points lower then a USCF rating on average. However, a piece is a piece. At this point, I had to ask myself, if I should resign. So, from the point in the game where he captured, I had to calculate the next series of moves and see if I had any compensation that I could try to use to develop something with. Here, I saw that after I develop my Queen and attack his Knight, he will spend one tempo moving it to safety. Now, I'm almost fully developed and he has his King still in the center. After castling, I'm fully developed, AND I have a discovery against his Queen. In addition, his Kingside Bishop is off to the side of the board doing nothing, so in effect, we are even in material as far as the Kingside and center is concerned. So, I'm up 2 tempi, have a discovery, his Bishop is hanging and ineffectual to the side of the board and outside the field of play, and I control the center. So, I do have some compensation, however, I should still lose by force. So, I played on for a bit longer to see if he would screw things up. After the move, 16.Nh3, I knew I was playing a very weak player and I should play for an attack. First, he wastes ANOTHER tempo on retreating, his King is left in the center, and he does nothing to answer the discovery threat. So, using all my favorable advantages, I play for a center break to open up the center and force an attack on his Queen which would net me some more tempi to further develop my attack and bring all my pieces into play. After my move 18... Qh4, he blundered again and castled, not realizing I had set up another discovery, this time against his hanging Bishop. Before my next move, he had an extra piece PLUS the Bishop Pair, but with my next move, I eliminate his Bishop pair. After 20... Qxa4, we can reevaluate the position. Material is even, however, I have the lone center pawn, more space in the center, he has doubled pawns, he has his Knight on the side of the board, and I have active pieces, I have a clear lane for my Rook on the F file. So, now the position is totally different then the position was after his 14. Nxe6.
So, basically, I chose not to resign because:
a) I had some compensation
b) I didn't trust his rating
c) You never win a game if you resign
So, I would suggest, that you evaluate exactly what chances you may have and how strong you think your opponent really is. Then play a few moves to try to utilize your advantages and look for weak plays on the part of your opponent. If you see that he or she is consolidating his advantage against you and your chances are being eliminated systematically, then resign.
Also, bear in mind that if you are in the reverse situation where you have an opponent that is weaker and he continues playing in a position where you believe he should resign, it is EXTREMELY RUDE to ask him to resign. That is a sign of a total patzer. It is the perogative of the losing player to resign or not resign at any time. If he continues to play, so be it. You have nothing to lose. Just make sure you don't blunder away the win. Don't whine if you lose a totally won game.
brunetti
♡ 40 ( +1 | -1 )
400-600? "I feel that the rankings are about 400 to 600 points lower then a USCF rating on average"
On average? No, you're talking about your own rating! You can't say on average... on which basis?
So, top 80 GK players, having an average GK rating of about 2150, should have a 2550-2750 average USCF rating. It would be fine, but USCF has only 39 players rated 2550+, and I'm not Onischuk :(
Alex
tonlesu
♡ 7 ( +1 | -1 )
on average I too am waiting for his response on the 400 t0 600 pts. lower. He's the first guy i've ever heard say that!
peppe_l
♡ 45 ( +1 | -1 )
400-600 points Perhaps he meant vice versa...at least based on Finnish ratings...The impression I have is USCF rating is higher in average than Finnish rating (using ELO players as comparison) but the difference is not big enough to explain why Finnish ratings are usually lower than GK ratings, but USCF ratings are 400-600 points higher than GK ratings...Yeah its a flattering thought to be an IM, but the truth is Im a LOT further from 2400+ strength than 366 points :)
tonlesu
♡ 45 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe This guy is a self proclaimed chess master from America. You lost me when you talk about Finnish ratings. Perhaps we should tell this guy of our tradition here on gameknot. When new players come on the site and say they are masters they give us their bona fides, that is their real name, the city they live in and their chess rating. Of course, if he is just blowing hot air---forget it.
peppe_l
♡ 87 ( +1 | -1 )
tonlesu I had to use Finnish ratings as an example because I dont know any USCF players...so I cant compare USCF and GK ratings, ok? I assume USCF and Finnish ratings are close enough and I used this example to express how surprising it was to hear about USCF ratings being 400-600 higher in average when compared to GK ratings.
About proving...Well, IMO there is no need to prove anything - its everyones own choice to believe or not to believe, regardless of does new member say hes a GM or 1200 player. Of course if we want to be 100% sure we must know 1) Real name 2) A proof that the person in question is who he says he is. But, ravendan says hes USCF Master, and since I dont have any reason to believe he is not telling the truth, I treat him as USCF Master and I am happy to see so strong player here. I am relatively new here so I wasnt aware of the tradition you mentioned in your post...
tonlesu
♡ 19 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe Well I guess some people will believe anything people tell them and some people won't.
by the way, my real name is Bobby
fischer and the Russians are fixing chess.
peppe_l
♡ 19 ( +1 | -1 )
Bobby Its a shame our world championship match in 1975 never took place!
Yours
Grandmaster Anatoly Karpov
PS
Hey, those Kasparov matches in 80s werent fixed, he just had luck!
tonlesu
♡ 22 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe Are you forgetting---I'm the sceptical one. I don't believe you're Karpov. give me proof. But I do agree with you about the 84' match. That was so ugly it couldn't have been choreographed. Even the Russian press panned that escapade.
ravendon
♡ 136 ( +1 | -1 )
Ratings "Having played a few games on here, I feel that the rankings are about 400 to 600 points lower then a USCF rating on average."
Oh, sorry. What I meant to say is that the actual playing strength of the gameknot players are about 400 to 600 points below what a USCF player of the same elo rating would be playing at. That's among the players I have played so far and also looking over some players games.
As for my real name, I don't feel that is anyone's business. My USCF rating is 2481 as of the 12-00 Annual List. I haven't been playing much since though. School is a higher priority. I have been awarded an International Master title by FIDE.
As for brunetti complaining that he is not Onischuk, I beg to differ. Your Gameknot rating is 2616. Alexander Onischuk's latest rating, as of Jan. 02, was at 2655. So, if Gameknot's ratings are accurate, I can easily conclude that you are truly my friend Alexander, and you have given up a few points to patzers since the FIDE rating list came out.
Also, if you compare the actual picture of Alex, at www.chessnetwork.com/ncn/300402.htm#poik with brunetti's, it is clear that brunetti's is heavily modified in Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro.
So, to reiterate, the Gameknot ratings appear to me to be quite misleading.
tonlesu
♡ 14 ( +1 | -1 )
master When a new guy comes onto the site and says he is a master and plays like a master but talks balderdash---I'm thinking he has a dog named fritz.
peppe_l
♡ 102 ( +1 | -1 )
Ok "Oh, sorry. What I meant to say is that the actual playing strength of the gameknot players are about 400 to 600 points below what a USCF player of the same elo rating would be playing at. That's among the players I have played so far and also looking over some players games."
Ok I suspected this was what you meant, but isnt 400-600 points (in average) bit too much? Especially since USCF ratings tend to be somewhat optimistic compared to FIDE (actually I can recall someone saying they are 150 points higher in average than FIDE ratings).
"As for my real name, I don't feel that is anyone's business. My USCF rating is 2481 as of the 12-00 Annual List. I haven't been playing much since though. School is a higher priority. I have been awarded an International Master title by FIDE"
Only one 2481 player on USCF Dec 2000 rating list, and yes, he is also an IM and 2400 on FIDE rating list. Not saying Ravendan is or isnt this person.
tonlesu
♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe You could be right but it just seems odd that an IM would be so unaware of the differences in ratings between cc, internet and otb. The person you speak of is very strong at speed chess and has played in some big tournaments in Wis. He graduated from MIT in 2000, had his own web site where he taught chess professionally.
ravendon
♡ 101 ( +1 | -1 )
Elo "Ok I suspected this was what you meant, but isnt 400-600 points (in average) bit too much? Especially since USCF ratings tend to be somewhat optimistic compared to FIDE (actually I can recall someone saying they are 150 points higher in average than FIDE ratings)."
I'm just making an observation based on the players I've played so far and the games I've gone through. I've only looked at about 20 games from various players, not including the games of players I have played or am playing. As I play more players, my observation may change to reflect their strength. I would have to go through every game ever played by everyone on this site to have a complete picture of average playing strength. And of course, the inevitable number of players who are using computer programs to aid their games would have to be accounted for in some way. Shame really, but I guess people have to prove themselves in some sort of arena. Claim to faim and all that nonsense.
ravendon
♡ 117 ( +1 | -1 )
Fritz "When a new guy comes onto the site and says he is a master and plays like a master but talks balderdash---I'm thinking he has a dog named fritz. "
Yeah, Fritz drops pieces for nothing all the time. board #320616
Besides, why would I use Fritz, when I could use Deeper Fritz, Gambit Tiger, Chess Tiger, Shredder, or Junior?
Plus, I highly doubt that Fritz at the highest setting would lose any game here. Deeper Fritz is at the top of the SSDF Rating list with a rating of 2726 and a 65% winning percentage against an average opposition rating of 2618. And that's only on an Athlon 1200 with only 256 Mb of ram.
In a 20 game match against it, I would lose every single game, in all likelihood. Maybe I could pull out 1 win and a scattering of draws. I doubt it though. Anyway, Deeper Fritz regularly beats players over 2600, both human and silicon, with ease.
So, since I dropped a piece early in one game and have lost another game, I highly doubt that I'm Fritz. Plus, I've never heard of Fritz being able to play Golf. :)