Does losing a piece mean losing a game?
Sort:
I have watched some 1700-2000 rated players and I often see how other player resign after losing a minor piece. And it is not like they lose a rook in the end game. Many times they resign after blundering knight in 10th move. Are they just so perfectionists in their games or is it really a lost cause in that level?
I have to clarify that I do know that rook is referred as major piece. I just formulated my words incorrectly.
Apr 17, 2019
0
#3
There are a lot of different things that can compensate for a material deficit. Even when it's a big material deficit.
But forget about being a piece down. If I'm a pawn down vs a peer in an otherwise equal position, then I'd be happy to draw.
And that was true many 100s of rating points ago.
One of my proudest games was drawing an 1800 OTB when I was 1600. I dropped a pawn on move 10. I fought like hell for that draw. The game lasted over 5 hours.
---
If a 1700-2000 accidentally loses a knight or bishop during the first 10 moves, resigning is certainly reasonable, even if it's a blitz game. Usually people play on a few more moves, but if there's zero compensation then they often resign.
llamonade kirjoitti:
llamonade kirjoitti: There are a lot of different things that can compensate for a material deficit. Even when it's a big material deficit.But forget about ...
Of course I do not resign after I am a piece down, especially in my level, there will be lot of opportunities to get compensation, because my opponent will make blunders. I once won a game when I was heavily down in material. My opponent blundered his queen, paniced and blundered again his rook. It was enough to me to win that game. That is why to me it is so foreign to resign in move 10 after losing one minor piece.
But thank you for your answer.
There are a lot of different things that can compensate for a material deficit. Even when it's a big material deficit.
But forget about being a piece down. If I'm a pawn down vs a peer in an otherwise equal position, then I'd be happy to draw.
And that was true many 100s of rating points ago.
One of my proudest games was drawing a 1800 OTB when I was 1600. I dropped a pawn on move 10. I fought like hell for that draw. The game lasted over 5 hours.
Apr 17, 2019
0
#5
James-Wallcroft wrote:
llamonade kirjoitti:
llamonade kirjoitti: There are a lot of different things that can compensate for a material deficit. Even when it's a big material deficit.But forget about ... Of course I do not resign after I am a piece down, especially in my level, there will be lot of opportunities to get compensation, because my opponent will make blunders. I once won a game when I was heavily down in material. My opponent blundered his queen, paniced and blundered again his rook. It was enough to me to win that game. That is why to me it is so foreign to resign in move 10 after losing one minor piece. But thank you for your answer.
There are a lot of different things that can compensate for a material deficit. Even when it's a big material deficit.
But forget about being a piece down. If I'm a pawn down vs a peer in an otherwise equal position, then I'd be happy to draw.
And that was true many 100s of rating points ago.
One of my proudest games was drawing a 1800 OTB when I was 1600. I dropped a pawn on move 10. I fought like hell for that draw. The game lasted over 5 hours.
You are correct to keep playing. It's usually bad to resign immediately.
In serious games I never resign immediately after I make a mistake, even if I blunder a knight or rook or queen.
If I lose a piece out of stupidity, I'll also resign, but where I'm in control, I could sac up to three pieces and continue on. It all depends on how much in control you are of your game.
If it is a blitz game, keep fighting, you could flag your opponent
Apr 17, 2019
0
#8
Interesting. Losing a minor piece for NO compensation against a tournament player should lose the game; but. With Queens still on the board, the losing side depending on the care the winning side takes; might be able to force perpetual check. Also; if the losing side can remove all the pawns and pieces, a minor piece can't win alone. But it might be a long hard fight and chances to draw are slim to none and playing on is generally a waste of time; typically best in tournament to resign and rest so to play better next round, not to mention not insulting your opponent. One might continue to play knowing you're lost, but for practice of technique; and knowing low rated players do blunder away the advantage. I note the high rated players, when in winning positions; take their time and are very careful even before they make "obvious" moves. However, when the loss is crystal clear, the winning method obvious and undeniable, time to resign.
Apr 17, 2019
0
#9
LOL, sacrifice is different animal, sacrifice isn't "lost piece". some of my best wins I sacrificed the exchange; and in two of those; simply sac'd exchange to improve piece activity; and improved position and piece activity eventually won. Combinations are often defined as starting with a sacrifice leading to forcing variation winning something, material, position, or game.
Apr 17, 2019
0
#10
I just recently had a game here where I blundered a knight away. I expected e6 so I played Bg5 almost instinctively. He played e5 with an attack on my knight. This didn’t register in my mind until after I confirmed my move. I played on but I should’ve resigned. Ended up losing the game.
