After I lose for example a rook and only get a bishop in return I lose hope because I think i can't win the game.
It depends on the position, of course, but often when you are down in material, your best bet is to try to launch a quick attack with the pieces you have left. If you can find a way to put your opponent under pressure, they might crack and make a mistake, which could lead to a mate or maybe a tactic that will allow you to win back some material.
In some cases, you might have fewer pieces on the board, but the pieces you have are more active than your opponent's. This sometimes happens if they are slow to develop their pieces. In this case, you want to strike before they have a chance to develop their remaining piece(s).
Generally, you want to avoid trading pieces when you are behind in material, as this removes the possibility of creating complicated positions that might lead to tactics that could win back material for you. Hope this helps.
If you are down material look for an attack. see if you can put your opponent in a position where he can't use all of his pieces in a coordinated way. Also, try to trade off pawns. The fewer pawns on the board in an endgame the harder it is to force a win. Remember that a King + Rook vs King + Bishop with no pawns on the board is a draw.
Pawn promotion. Duh! If you can't promote, try to draw the game
I fall to pieces. - Patsy Cline
If you're talking about Live chess, just attack! Try to put the winning side (the one which won material) in a passive position.
When you're down a really significant amount of material, the main thing to remember is that you're playing for *quality*. This means you need to make your pieces better than your opponent's. Let's say you get something like this:
Black to move
Black is a clear rook ahead and has the move (so the knight on a1 can even be rescued, in theory), but the h8 rook seems like it will never do anything at all, and basically all of black's pieces are far away from where they need to be to help save the king. This is an Alison Hart flash composition, so it may be horribly flawed in some way, but the point still remains: This position is all about the activity of white's pieces and the safety of white's king when compared to black's pieces and black's king. If you have a deadly kind of *quality*, your opponent's *quantity* is worthless.
Because of this, keeping queens ON THE BOARD favors the side with lower material - because checkmate threats are one of the only possible ways you can be better. If you opponent manages to get the queens off and settle the position down into something manageable, the side with less material will lose in the long game. Let's take this A <3 patzer comp:
White to move
White simply can't hold the position - all of the pieces are stuck defending weaknesses while black happily improves and marches the passed pawn to victory....white's extra pawn is beyond meaningless...maybe there was a hope for some kind of mating attack 20 moves ago, but, in the present position, white is just going to roll over.
Both of these positions are intentionally exaggerated, so what about something a little deeper and harder to get at? Take this example - which is from a Tigran Petrosian game in 1945 - Petrosian is black and just sacrificed a rook for a bishop
White to move
Petrosian has 'less' material AND the queens are off the board, but he's also poised to snap off two different pawns! Neither of white's rooks are close to as good as Petrosians single one - blasting down the open h file like a beast while white's stare hopelessly at pawns that cannot really be defended. Also, look at how much space Petrosian has - he's marching up the board unchallenged. In fact, if you compare each and every one of black's pieces to each and every one of whites, it looks to me like *EVERY SINGLE ONE* of Petrosian's pieces is on a better square and has more options. White is dead in the water. Now Petrosian makes it look easy.....I think there would be few who would argue with me when I say that he is easily one of the best (and potentially THE best) positional players in history. Still, this position demonstrates the strength of quality over material count very strikingly.
Basically, it comes down to this: The side with less material will win through dynamics - complicating the position in order to force concessions that either close the material gap (by winning it back) or gaining an advantage so huge that the material doesn't matter in the first place.
Petrosian diagram is horribly flawed because some idiot forgot to include the rook.....
I've always thought that "don't resign, fight fight fight" is terrible advice....good for morale....good for ego....but it doesn't do anything to help someone's concept of the game itself.
Hope that He or She makes a mistake. But It is better to look at the hole board and study it before moving. There are many moves to retake control if you look real hard before jumping into the unknown. Look for the weak squares and attack them. I am 72 years old and have played for many years. Remember Chess is still only a game. When I was young, I started playing at age 11. I was good back then, but time takes its toll. But I still Play as much as I can. Good Luck to All
Petrosian diagram is horribly flawed because some idiot forgot to include the rook.....
Excelent diagrams and concept about quality of pieces over value, I mean a piece only worth something if it is active. We can make an example with a good knight over a poor rook too.
It does not matter that your opponet owns the rook is impossible to win the position with correct play. White just keeps moving the knight around and there is no entry point or open file for the rook to make her work done.
Also if you reach an ending remember that you can over simplify to reach a draw. Here being a piece and a pawn down you can make a draw easy.
The answer is pretty simple, if you want to continue and try to get the material back, you have to force a position where he'll be obligated to give the piece back, but that requires planning ahead with that potential "sacrifice" to be effective.
Sometimes even being a piece down isn't all that relevant since most pieces are usually not into play anyway, and what trully counts to some part is the ammount of active and well placed pieces, not their ammount. You can give checkmate even with a couple of pawns, given the right position.
Also, there's some situations sometimes, like losing a rook on h1/a1 to the opponent queen might actually work in your favor since you might be able to block queen's escape and your opponent will usually basically need some precious turns to bring it to safety, while you have the opportunity to prepare a deadly attack meanwhile, or preparing a superior position while he's busy for tactical reasons.
After I lose for example a rook and only get a bishop in return I lose hope because I think i can't win the game.