Why You Should Never Resign

Thanks for the forum topic Roy

I would title as Why you should never resign in rapidplay games

Then the majority might agree, on the provisor that play continues rather than simply allowing the clock to wind down.

Thank You

John Boy.

I'd like to disagree. At my level, losing a queen for a rook is resignable. Especially if I've already hung a bishop.

And I'm no Grandmaster.

Trust me.

Resigning one move from mate is pretty Nancy.

To add something to the discussion, my teacher, who is a GM, once told me that when you blunder something major (a piece, a rook, etc, not just a pawn) - that you should just resign. He said that the types of thoughts that one ends up having for the rest of the game are completely unproductive and downright bad for your chess development.

He framed the whole issue as a struggle to get better at chess, instead of winning games.

I think Nimzovitch wrote something very similar to what your teacher told you.  I just can't bring myself to do it;)

i like that idea.  when i drop a piece i tend to play like 5hit anyway.  i think playing like that doesn't help a person especially when they are playing a strong player.  even if you play really well after dropping the piece, it's totally wishful thinking to hope that your opponent will also blunder--and if he/she doesn't then you deserve to lose.  i hate winning off blunders anyway--about as much as winning from timeouts.  i guess it comes down to why you play--to win, or to get better.  there are times for both.

That being said, I can think of a game I played on here which is on topic. I'll send you a message.

great game.  a few things stand out that would have kept me from resigning as well--weaker opponent--far weaker actaully.  worth seeing how things pan out there.  plus his light bishop was pretty backed up and almost rendered useless by your pawn structure so you were virtually even.  it looked almost like a tall pawn.  i think tournaments are a good time to see how things pan out.  mostly if you're joining a tournament, your intentions are to win right?

 At the level he is at, he did the right thing by not resigning.  Once you get to the C class and above then you would resign.  I watched a game last year in Reno, Nevada between 2 guys playing in the unrated section.  One guy had a queen, rook, bishop, against a lone King.  And he didnt know how to check mate. 

I wont resign if im down pieces to a lower opponent. But when im down against an opponent much better than me i usually give them the benifit of the doubt that they will play better if not perfect compared to me.

 That's one of the ideas that I try to flog at least once in awhile here: The half point or even full point is typically insignificant, and moreso the less one knows about the game. The main idea is to get better. Then all those precious points begin to take care of themselves.

Win enough to stay interested in sticking with the game.

Take all that energy and time spent trying for a stalemate etc. and study K+P v. K endings, for example.

Of course, if the player just isn't that serious about getting better then they are beyond my interest for the most part--they can do what they want and what's the difference to anyone really.

Rook and Bishop vs. Queen is not a situation to resign. I think it's about equal. Some people give the Rook and Bishop an edge over the Queen.

the way i read it was one of the guys had a rook, bishop, AND queen.  the other guy only had his queen.  i find it hard to believe that he couldn't come up with checkmate (btw)

If I drop a piece early in the game (when I still have most of my army), I will play on to see if I can complicate things or build an attack.

If my opponent manages to simplify things and I have no counterplay, I will resign.

I don't play on hoping for a blunder or a win on time. I think it's lame when people do that.

good game