I think it's probably a matter of personal preference, perhaps also one of experience...I've often wondered if people play Chess similarly to the way there are handicaps in Go -- for instance, maybe a really good player would play without the queen from the start. Just for the challenge. I don't see there's a down side to playing on and still trying to win even after being down a piece or two. At least at my level. I just didn't want to be seen as a poor sport for continuing to play when someone may feel like they've got the game already. It sounds like there's no need for me to worry. Thank you all for the input. Appreciated!
@CheshireCat1977 Can you explain how to keep playing against the computer after someone's resigned? I didn't know this was possible and that sounds like a nice way to keep going (and without wasting anyone's time but my own!) :-)
Being a good sport questions
I've often wondered if people play Chess similarly to the way there are handicaps in Go -- for instance, maybe a really good player would play without the queen from the start. Just for the challenge.
I used to play Go quite a bit, and I think handicaps there are more common and accepted because they can be applied in much smaller increments than in chess. In chess, giving up pieces alters the game in more fundamental ways, although it is an accepted way to even odds between players of wildly different skill.
If you challenge a specific player on chess.com (you have to enter their name first before this option will appear), you can click the "standard" button and choose "Balanced / Odds" for game type. Then, you can pick what starting arrangement to use. Things like giving up a queen are among the choices.
As far as continuing against the computer, on the Analysis board once your game is over, you should see this icon at the bottom:
Click that and you can finish your game vs. the computer.
Both of these are on the current web interface. In the mobile app, options might be in slightly different places or not exist.
Thank you very much! I usually play on the computer so this should be all I need. THANK YOU!
Looks like your question has been answered. Though for emphasis, I’ll add my opinion as well.
At your level:
- It is never rude to keep on playing
- It is never rude to resign when you think you have no chance (in rated games)
Regarding the keep on playing: As others mentioned, GMs recommend to keep playing. It’s good for your experience and most of the time more winnable than you think. Imagine that whenever you are in a completely lost position you hand over control to a GM. Picture Nakamura (for example) taking a $10 bet he can still win it. If you resign a game he can still win it cost you 10 and if you resign a game even he can’t win, you are alright to resign.
Personally I resign when I’ve lost my last reasonable chance of winning or have no playable lines left. For example, I can be in position that is completely lost, odds very much stacked against me, as long as I have any form of threat I keep playing. That said, in some situations when all my tactics are spotted and I’m totally neutralized, I do resign.
Finally, this gets easier once you’ve played more games. After a couple of hundred games, you tend to think less about your opponent’s opinion about whether you keep playing or resign. Whether you keep playing or resign, you’re probably right.
The idea that one error forgives later errors is not the kind of attitude that leads to improvement in any case.
If I were just making unmotivated moves to waste my opponent's time and see how they beat me, then I'd agree with your point of view. But, what's actually happening is that I'm applying every bit of concentration and focus I have left in me to find a way to make up a material deficit, or failing that, checkmate my opponent without making up the deficit, or failing that, concluding the game in a draw. The idea that this is somehow not meaningful practice is bizarre.
Besides which, those extra wins (which are more than a few and materially affect my rating) ensure that I'm matched against stronger overall players, which in turn pressures me to raise the quality of my play.
But, don't take it from me. Chess pros and educators seem pretty unified on the matter too. IM Jeremy Silman, GM Ben Finegold, lots of other coaches and chess educators talk about the value to beginners of hanging in there. (Not to mention Lauren Goodkind, who probably will pop up in this thread sooner or later to reinforce the message.)
I have never said that playing on is meaningless. I have said your time is better spent on a new game.
Can you not change the matching parameters manually? I'm sure there are ways of playing people higher rated if you wish.
I like Ben Finegold. He's a very intelligent man. His advice is focused mostly on kids though. He wants them to understand that it's never over and he wants them to enjoy their chess and keep playing for their whole lives. A single comeback win might motivate them for years without them even knowing it. Most kids won't differentiate their behaviour between casual games and tournament games and he wants them to be playing on until the end in tournament type settings.
Do you think that if he's in a coaching session with one of his students and he's playing a game against them and they blunder their Queen (as an example), he's going to let them play that game out for another 20 moves? No, he isn't. He's going to move on to either playing another game, or analysing the last one.
It's time management. you can be doing something that's very beneficial to your game (and probably fun), or you can be doing something that's slightly beneficial to your game (and probably frustrating and boring).
If you don't agree, that's fine. Please don't twist my words though.
Thank you very much! I usually play on the computer so this should be all I need. THANK YOU!
I see that @paleobotanical has shown you how to finish games off against the computer (thanks for doing so). In addition when you have started playing the computer the arrow shows where to click to change the level of the bot:
I agree that a beginner can learn much by playing to the bitter end in a losing position. But notice that advanced players resign when loss is imminent. Some may view continued play after a losing move as disrespectful as it may intimate that your opponent thinks you are ignorant of the situation, or believes you are likely to blunder. Of course, not all have such a perspective.
If you lose, lose gracefully. Winning a heart is a greater gain than that of winning a game. I heard someone once tactfully say, "I learned so much from losing that game that I'm thinking of losing a few more."
If you lose, lose gracefully. Winning a heart is a greater gain than that of winning a game. I heard someone once tactfully say, "I learned so much from losing that game that I'm thinking of losing a few more."
Best advice in the thread.
I have had a couple of games where the other play just has their king left and they play on even though I have taken all their other pieces and they can't really do anything except move their king around. Sometimes they win or it is stalemate and others they run out of time and I win. I would have thought that in this situation they would resign?
I have had a couple of games where the other play just has their king left and they play on even though I have taken all their other pieces and they can't really do anything except move their king around. Sometimes they win or it is stalemate and others they run out of time and I win. I would have thought that in this situation they would resign?
Learn basic checkmates. This may also help you see attacking opportunities earlier in the game. If you lose vs a lone king it must have been because you were low on time--your opponent has every right to ask you to show him you can win efficiently.
Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I’m a chess coach based in California: www.ChessByLauren.com.
Since you are a beginner, I highly recommend you to not resign until the game ends in a checkmate or stalemate or when somebody's time runs out. Why? Because a blunder can happen at anytime. After the game is over, then write "GG" which means "Good Game".
To lose a Rook for no compensation, when you were already down a Queen, is not a blunder.
The idea that one error forgives later errors is not the kind of attitude that leads to improvement in any case.
If I were just making unmotivated moves to waste my opponent's time and see how they beat me, then I'd agree with your point of view. But, what's actually happening is that I'm applying every bit of concentration and focus I have left in me to find a way to make up a material deficit, or failing that, checkmate my opponent without making up the deficit, or failing that, concluding the game in a draw. The idea that this is somehow not meaningful practice is bizarre.
Besides which, those extra wins (which are more than a few and materially affect my rating) ensure that I'm matched against stronger overall players, which in turn pressures me to raise the quality of my play.
But, don't take it from me. Chess pros and educators seem pretty unified on the matter too. IM Jeremy Silman, GM Ben Finegold, lots of other coaches and chess educators talk about the value to beginners of hanging in there. (Not to mention Lauren Goodkind, who probably will pop up in this thread sooner or later to reinforce the message.)