Why Do Some People Resign A Chess Game Because They Lost A Bishop/Knight?

Sort:
Oldest
AiryWigglyTown

Hello guys!

So today I watched a game of my friend vs another guy( I don't know that guy ), and that other guy resigned after losing his Bishop. But why?

Just asking

AiryWigglyTown
royalknight101 wrote:

cause he is lost

Lol one time a lost a Bishop AND a Knight and in the end I got my opponent's Queenwink.png

AiryWigglyTown
Tad2721 wrote:

Cos they will probably lose. BTW why we're u looking at your friends games?

Sometimes I just can't get a game and so I look at the friend's game to pass the time...

assgatito

Agree with royal.

anandichatterjee

Yup, there are people who feel lost after they lose their minor piece,  Earthling! 

AiryWigglyTown
anandichatterjee wrote:

Yup, there are people who feel lost after they lose their minor piece,  Earthling! 

Ah I see, Zompire

KeSetoKaiba
AiryWigglyTown wrote:

Hello guys!

So today I watched a game of my friend vs another guy( I don't know that guy ), and that other guy resigned after losing his Bishop. But why?

Just asking

Probably because they give up too easily, or the psychology of just not wanting to play a losing battle. Under 1000 chess.com rating, resigning should almost never be an option because people fail to convert even when a Queen up sometimes (especially several Queens because of it easier to stalemate).

The reason for justifiably resigning is recognizing that you are "lost" and/or no practical chance at winning or drawing. The higher the player ratings, then the more likely they will resign for a few reasons. The first is because they will more accurately assess the position and/or lack of counterplay and secondly is because the opponent is more likely to convert smaller advantages more effectively.

Batman2508

a 2152 resighned to me when I was up two paw in the middlegame 

rip

anandichatterjee
royalknight101 wrote:
AiryWigglyTown wrote:
anandichatterjee wrote:

Yup, there are people who feel lost after they lose their minor piece,  Earthling! 

Ah I see, Zompire

you mean mr.potter

Um....Not mr.potter lol! My name is Anandi or Zompire. My friend's call me by Zompire ( Zombie+Vampire) similarly, I call @AiryWigglyTown as Earthling 

StickerFish1

The one must have to put a rule to himself to not leave a game whatever he was in a disadvantage.. Because without this, you almostly will leave every game you play. I feel that some player are desperate to play in a "perfect" game.

For me, I don't see any incentive for leaving EXCEPT if your enemy mindlessly start spamming/flagging.

DrNykterstein

yeah, they just lost a piece and they should watch the video "what to do when you're losing" then they can have courage to continue even if they're down a queen!

rook_fianchetto_37
AiryWigglyTown wrote:

Hello guys!

So today I watched a game of my friend vs another guy( I don't know that guy ), and that other guy resigned after losing his Bishop. But why?

Just asking

sometimes it just takes one player to be a pawn up to win when u r 1600 or higher

rook_fianchetto_37

because u tend to start to play more positionally without much tactics

rook_fianchetto_37

until u reach a rating over 2000

AiryWigglyTown
Tad2721 wrote:
royalknight101 wrote:
AiryWigglyTown wrote:
anandichatterjee wrote:

Yup, there are people who feel lost after they lose their minor piece,  Earthling! 

Ah I see, Zompire

you mean mr.potter

Nope, he is Zompire

Yup

rook_fianchetto_37

here is a game which shows that an advantage of only 1 pawn can lead to a win (after move 32) https://www.chess.com/game/live/20940031967

SunGokuBr

I think mostly is out of respect. I play a lot on the board, and sometimes I know that I'll win on time (I got 3 minutes and opponent under 45 seconds), but the position is totally won for my opponent. Since we're friends playing "unrated" and on the board, I like to pay them respect for getting the better position, even though I'd win on time,

AiryWigglyTown
Jonathanyip90 wrote:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/21150110377

It would make more sense to play on at this level but a 4 or 5 point advantage is a lot in the opening phase. That advantage normally stacks up when you're winning. So resigning is not a bad move if you ask me.

OMG he could have played d4 and win back the Bishop! I know it looks like giving away one more Pawn, but the Queen is also attacked!

SunGokuBr

hahaha I admit I do it on online chess for ranking points. when my opponent has under 15 seconds, After all, time management is a great part of chess.  But I only do it when it's and endgame where the opponent has like 3 or 4 points of material advantage.

If I'm down 8+ material points and he stil got sometime to figure out a check mate, I don't try to rush him on clock. Gotta pay the respect.

SunGokuBr
royalknight101 wrote:
Tad2721 wrote:
SunGokuBr wrote:

I think mostly is out of respect. I play a lot on the board, and sometimes I know that I'll win on time (I got 3 minutes and opponent under 45 seconds), but the position is totally won for my opponent. Since we're friends playing "unrated" and on the board, I like to pay them respect for getting the better position, even though I'd win on time,

That is nice. I hate in blitz and bullet when u r CLEARLY winning and your opponent just spams random moves and u lose on time. It's REALLY annoying

eh not annoying but a little confusing as you pause for a second cause you dont know what happened

 

hahaha and it's that pause that who's got more time but worse position is looking for.

On bullet I win a lot of games by creating calculating positions for my opponent. Aimchess even said that I'm a player with great time management and creating complications on bullet, but low skills on tactics and capitalization.

Forums
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic