Hmm . . . no offense, but it seems like you only won because your opponent played poorly. 
Why You Should Never Resign
Sort:
On the positive side, you shouldn't resign to players 1200-1400 when down a queen. But, when you play above that they will see it.
But, you should be happy and nice job.
Move 41 you should have taken his rook with your bishop!
May 10, 2009
0
#5
Also, to be fair, you weren't really down a queen. You were down a queen for a rook and bishop. Basically my rule of thumb is that I'll resign only when I have no reasonable swindling chances (especially tricks up my sleeve). How bad a position that is for me is largely dependant on who I'm playing against and the time left on the clocks.
Very misleading title.
You were just down the exchange, NOT down an entire queen. Wasted 5 minutes of my life.
Resigning is an etiquette to the opponent, sure, you can play recklessly and hope for a perpetual, but resigning in a lost position is respecting the opponent.
May 10, 2009
0
#8
iTwilight wrote:
Resigning is an etiquette to the opponent, sure, you can play recklessly and hope for a perpetual, but resigning in a lost position is respecting the opponent.
Absolutely. Not resigning is basically saying "I'm not convinced you can win this." That's part of why I'll play longer against say a 1000 than I will against a GM (actually the one time I played a GM I played on way too long, but then he was blindfold and I was savouring the opportunity). I respect a GM's abilities much more than the average guy off the street.
The point is I am not a great player. I will lose a lot. But my opponents are only human and will make mistakes too. Do not assume that your opponent is going to play perfectly even if your position is not good.
And sorry Oprahfan, but the title is "Why you should never resign" & I think this game is an example. Sure I didn't play great, but I also didn't assume my opponent was going to make a great move on every move. I know there are games I've won because I ahead by only 1 piece and the opponent resigned. They also should not assume that I will play the rest of the game without mistakes & blunders.
iTwilight wrote:
Resigning is an etiquette to the opponent, sure, you can play recklessly and hope for a perpetual, but resigning in a lost position is respecting the opponent.
"Resigning in a lost position is respecting the opponent." That is why I don't drag out games with my opponents.... I too may be selfish, but what I do to others, I expect the same in a lost position to me. I do see 1500+ opponents resigning in lost positions and that is why I won't play under that mark. Good comment twilight.
jsand8 wrote:
Move 41 you should have taken his rook with your bishop!
Thanks Jsand8, I know. I missed that, but at the time I only had about 20 seconds left & I wasn't thinking clearly
turkey_12345act wrote:
Hmm . . . no offense, but it seems like you only won because your opponent played poorly.
Ditto. Painterroy, you're rated better than I, but that game looked pretty clumsy on both sides to be honest, just more so by your opponent.
exactly! A lot of chess players are like me. Even if they're higher rated, don't give up, this is always a slim hope that they will make a mistake.
May 10, 2009
0
#14
it looks like it was a live game so im guessing you were in some time trouble at the end.
I agree with you, I wouldn't resign if it was a queen vs a rook and bishop
but just to make things clear he could have played 31.. Qa1 to save his queen
I just replied on a topic about resigning when there's a forced mate, but this is much different. Definitely NOT! Resigning when you've lost ur queen is a TOTAL sign of utter dependence on a stronger piece. Rather, just look out for an opportunity to strike back!
Point well-taken.
We should not resign quickly to players who currently have low ratings (no offense, but current low ratings does NOT mean they are not good players - they may have recently joined, have played too few games to boost their ratings, or play too many games to think long on any particular move, or timed out in lots of games due to unavoidable circumstances - but we generally equate high ratings with better players, but NOT vice versa).
But not resigning at the right time when playing with standard(= high-rated) players (who do not make oversights) unneccessarily irritates them - sportsmanship and good relations with others I value much higher than mere points.
Just goes to show: never give up!
There is good sportmanship, but that does not mean resigning even if you think you are in a losing position. Now I'm not talking about if you just have a King and maybe 1 other piece and your opponent has maybe 7 pieces. Even then i would resign. But otherwise if I'm just even 3 pieces down & I'm playing an opponent who let's say 500 points higher than me, I'm still not going to resign. They're human. Who's to say they won't make a blunder. Sure higly unlikely, but it could happens. That's one of the beauties of chess. Or any game or sport. Yogi berra was right...it's ain't over til it's over. To me good sportmanship is another thing. That means saying Hi when you begin a game, saying good luck to your opponent, if you are playing for real shake hands etc., when the game is over win or lose, say "good game" to each other. That's what I consider good sportmanship. No?
May 10, 2009
0
#19
I would not have given up either; for his queen you had a rook and a bishop and a passed pawn. The position was still very playable.
Here is a game I just played. I used to resign in cases ike this, where I lost my queen, but this is a case which proves that unless your playing a grandmaster (yeah like that'll ever happen to me) never resign & play as best you can till the end.