@DrinksLikeTyrion "You can try and hold that and give your best in counterplay if there is any."
Having counterplay is meaning lack of development of your opponent or imbalanced position. In that cases loosing one piece is not that terible.
www.quora.com/Why-do-people-resign-in-chess"Resignation is also a form of respect to your opponent skills, when you are playing against a strong player and there is no hope to survive.
Chess masters rarely would like to see his king being checkmated in front of his eyes."
I'm done with this. Enjoy your chess folks.
I would just add this quote from Tartakower:
Nobody ever won a game by resigning.
And yet Tartakower resigned just as much as any other GM.
Hi Gyryth - do you have a source for that comment?
I've just beaten a player twice in a row while materially behind. In the first case, I was one piece behind, in the second, two pieces. And in neither case was this a case of calculated sacrifices; they were both blunders.
What I did after blundering was to assess: Well, I'm behind, but are all his pieces combined well? No. Well, do I have a couple of attacking moves with which to carry on for at least a little while? Yes.
So, I fought on, as scintillatingly as possible. And this is the point. If you do go in with a bit of fire (pressing 'hyperspace' is another term), then either you will lose quite quickly anyway - which doesn't really cause your opponent any angst - or you might just end up with a real game on. If you have a real game on again, you are showing disrespect to neither your opponent nor yourself.
(Yes, if you have only a king and your opponent has two rooks, then by all means resign. But please do not think that even convention requires early resignation if you are not ready for it.)
Maybe there should be categories of seriousness other than casual and rated, like casual, rated-but-it's-nothing-serious, rated-and-no-BS, and rated-accepting-those-terms-and-conditions-with-international-law-validity-and-we're-going-to-court-if-it's-needed.
Perhaps also a blood feud alternative to the legal civilized contract one.
I like the rated-accepting-those-terms-and-conditions-with-international-law-validity-and-we're-going-to-court-if-it's-needed idea.
"You have to keep in mind that a lot of players, beginners especially, have no idea what a completely lost position looks like."
Against a 1500 rated player, maybe, but against a more than 1000 matchs played and a rate of 1800 in 3 0, a Queen lost (or any other piece), the opponent disappear right after that move, obviously because of frustration, that person knows for sure that when he/she do this, the potential winner would have to wait for the clock to end. This is bad behaviour, nothing else.
Imagine, sometimes, I encounter multiple rematch kind of person (run by frustration most of the time), where I win almost all the rematches (over 5 most of the time; the funny side of this is I lost the first match), and when they lose the last one (obviously after a bad move), they disconnect before the end. I'm 100% sure they know what they are doing...
My ban list gets bigger everyday...!
I mainly play either 1, 2 or 3 minute games. Why would I resign? There is always the possibility that your opponent may blunder back a queen, leave either a check or stale mate as well. I've lost many games I should have won and won even more that I should have lost. Then there is the time element as well.
As for rematches, well if an opponent is playing interesting moves then I am happy to play multiple games. But boring swappy games trying to win on time are a complete turn off. I also want different openings as well.
@coledavis. I don't have exact stats but I'm not aware of any game where Tartakower was checkmated although I'm aware of many that he lost.
