@fpvbmct so? Winning isn't everything. I also win 0% of games of checkers that I don't play, but I don't lose any sleep over that.
@Wolfram_EP Totally agree. I've beaten 2000 players in blitz when I was down a Queen after 20 moves.
@Wolfram_EP, I agree with you but, anyway, few amazing stalemate patterns can happen sometimes. I think if you want to know a little bit more about this "odd" phenomenon, then the "always - resign" policy doesn't look like the best chance.
I can approve the non-resign philosophy in a single case when you play in a team tournament. A bunch of people are behind you, and so is you. That's when you squeeze it out of a stone. You cannot let the team down no matter what, even if you blundered out every piece.
Otherwise, in a simple one-on-one game, it's just blatantly disrespectful and insincere. Well, that may work for a person trying to justify their poor play, but who else would justify them? Who else would say you won or saved it well and truly?
Otherwise, in a simple one-on-one game, it's just blatantly disrespectful and insincere. Well, that may work for a person trying to justify their poor play, but who else would justify them? Who else would say you won or saved it well and truly?
If GM Larry Christiansen had resigned this game against GM Beliavsky we would not have faced this amazing stalemate trick game.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1089020
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1089020
@soni777new
"@nayf you see chess in a different way to the rest of us, hence why there is a difference in opinion. I see chess in the same way as I might see maths - it's not a competitive sport, but it's an intellectual pursuit of truth. "
Really! So if you blunder away a piece, annointing the blunder by resigning is "truth", but if you play on and make a brilliant comeback overcoming your initial blunder, that is what, falsehood? That's a logic, or "mathematical truth", from Alice and Wonderland.
"@nayf you see chess in a different way to the rest of us, hence why there is a difference in opinion. I see chess in the same way as I might see maths - it's not a competitive sport, but it's an intellectual pursuit of truth. "
Really! So if you blunder away a piece, annointing the blunder by resigning is "truth", but if you play on and make a brilliant comeback overcoming your initial blunder, that is what, falsehood? That's a logic, or "mathematical truth", from Alice and Wonderland.
If winning some random game of online chess is very important for you, then don't resign, and fight till the end no matter how desperate it seems. Sadly the counterpart of your desperate wriggle has to play a blatant, dull game till the end, but that's the nature of the game. If you find more enjoyment in playing a good game and contemplating a position, then resign if the game offers you no reasonable chance, and start a new game. It's all up to what you want to do in your life.
@soni777new agree 100%
@soni777new agree 100%
Honestly If I would end up in a position that's clearly losing with my opponent having a lot of time to finish the game I would resign. If for example my opponent is low on time while having a winning position I will try to flag him possibly.
@Morozov
"@nayf Have I responded to you? No, because I don't value your opinion. Why would you ask me if I can read?"
Because when you wrote:
"It is neither brave nor diffucult to waste your opponents time."
you were responding to an opinion precisely that you didn't value. I agree, however, that the view you were "responding" to was a straw man advocated by no one here.
You see a lot of amateur beginner and intermediate players here imitating GMs by resigning early. Yet neither they nor their opponents are in fact GMs, and at their level the game may be far from decided. Superficially imitating GM behaviour - without that level of competence - is the real childishness, like a child who pretends he's an adult by trying on Daddy's shoes. I'm not advocating playing on when there is no reasonable chance of winning, but one's assessment of reasonableness should be appropriate to one's level of play and the significance of the time factor. Resigning in bullet, for instance, is almost always UNreasonably defeatist.
By the way, there are some notorious premature resignations even in GM tournaments; I think Karpov did one of them.
"@nayf Have I responded to you? No, because I don't value your opinion. Why would you ask me if I can read?"
Because when you wrote:
"It is neither brave nor diffucult to waste your opponents time."
you were responding to an opinion precisely that you didn't value. I agree, however, that the view you were "responding" to was a straw man advocated by no one here.
You see a lot of amateur beginner and intermediate players here imitating GMs by resigning early. Yet neither they nor their opponents are in fact GMs, and at their level the game may be far from decided. Superficially imitating GM behaviour - without that level of competence - is the real childishness, like a child who pretends he's an adult by trying on Daddy's shoes. I'm not advocating playing on when there is no reasonable chance of winning, but one's assessment of reasonableness should be appropriate to one's level of play and the significance of the time factor. Resigning in bullet, for instance, is almost always UNreasonably defeatist.
By the way, there are some notorious premature resignations even in GM tournaments; I think Karpov did one of them.
never resing in bullet or blitz games.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.