Learn to resign

I'm not sure anyone is saying resign in positions where there are realistic drawing chances. If they are, that's fairly dumb.

“No one ever won a game by resigning”
(Saviely Tartakower)

Try watching the uncompromising Nakamura...

There's a famous video on youtube of Magnus squeezing out a win when he was offered a draw. www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtXu6l90LE

Okay, it's not very famous, but it's a good example of why strong and/or serious players should play to the death.

TonyRo: Pretty sure that is at least what #17 said. I mean he said he doesn't see a point playing a piece down. I generally have the feeling that everyone has a different kind of position in mind when they say their opinion about resigning here.

Of course I resign positions that I am 99.9% sure I will lose (important: not only that the position is "lost", but that I will factually lose). But as long as there is room for my opponent to err (or when I am unsure) I won't resign. Btw a great lecture by GM Seirawan about not giving up early: m.youtube.com/watch?v=iGnwFsXzqe0

Rule number 1 of chess: Don't be a jerk.

Rule number 2: Don't resign if you've got any realistic chance of drawing or getting a backrank or something. And don't accept a draw if you have a chance to win -- this is the one Magnus Carlsen seems to live his entire chess career from because he's just a genius with endgame calculation and wearing down his opponent.

However, most of us are not Magnus Carlsen and there are just positions that are hopeless and should not be continued out of respect for your opponent or for your own sanity...and some times I see players push on in positions even Carlsen would resign, like the ones I mentioned in my post.

But that's where rule number 1 comes in. Just because someone's being unrealistic with their expectation and thereby insulting you by making the claim they think you will somehow foul up a position that an 8 year old would win against Magnus Carlsen, there is no reason to be rude about it. Just say "gg" or something and see if they catch on.

(Not to mention if you claim your win and it isn't a win and you end up drawing or losing after telling them to "just resign!" you look pretty foolish. ;) )

@StefanGR - #17 was extremely vague. There's a wide spectrum of positions where one side can be down a piece. There are some I would encourage even the most inexperienced players to resign, and some that I would never resign.

My point is that every experienced player has some threshold at which they judge it to be impossible to draw and therefore prefer to resign. And that in and of itself will be a function of their rating. It's complete poppycock to play on to mate 100% of the time. There's no doubt in my mind that that's simply a waste of one's time - how much is up to them!

And all of these talks about players fighting in objectively drawn positions is off-topic. And again, there's an extraordinary range of "objectively" drawn positions - in some both players couldn't make progress if they tried, and in some spectators on the internet think they're easily drawn because a computer tells them, but they're wildly complicated and well worth playing. Of course, the future of chess would be better if more players were like Nakamura and Carlsen, but that has nothing to do with resigning! Both of those players very, very rarely play until bare kings are left (though they have!).

Magnus Carlsen takebacks against girls. Do you think everyone should be like him!!!!!!!!!!

Of course.

"Playing on a piece down" was meant to be understood as "Playing on a piece down without compensation or swindling chances", but I somehow thought that was self evident.
If I lose a knight in the opening to some trap or combination, there might optimistically still be like 5% drawing chances and 5% winning chances - in a blitz game at least - but I'm not willing to play for that. I just resign.
If I make a big blunder, I resign, even though I know it is possible for my opponent to make an equally big blunder.

This idea of practicing playing lost positions I don't understand. It is a much better use of time to practice playing equal positions.
Just do the cost/benefit calculation and start a new game instead of hoping for a blunder from your opponent.

Playing on a piece down; for whatever reason, I have won so many games in that position.

I see no shame in playing to the end. It may be convenient for both sides for somebody to resign when completely wrecked, but otherwise it is up to the 'winner' to get on and defeat the opponent. If they can't then the 'loser' hasn't really been beaten.

My only objection is to those in a losing position who neither play on nor resign. Now that is unsporting.