<Comment deleted by user>
@juancruzariasTDF said in #1:
> Comments on lichess.org/@/juancruzariastdf/blog/are-you-good-at-resigning/W83Xa6FB
Feeling qualified to answer because I have resigned against you already :D
Coming from similar experiences, I only tend to resign if the position is clear-cut enough that I am confident that i could win from my opponents side (given similar strength of me and my opponent obviously) without spending time, as in so trivially winning one could win easily by just blitzing out moves. Personally, this seems like a good rule of thumb, as the barrier moves with the player strength. 700s being down a piece? play on. 2000s being down a piece with zero compensation, resign.
Also its advisable to take a moment to think about even the weirdest moves before resigning, sometimes theres an odd resource to be found (eventho you might be lost, you might cause challenges for your opponent)
I recently had a friendly club game where my opponent also told me i could resign:
The position seemed infact hopeless, however Re8! came as a suprise, followed immidately by a blunder from white, who basically had mentally already moved on from the game. Its one case where theoretically White is still winning, but looking at the engine, the winning path is not trivial, and consists of quite a few only moves. If i wouldnt have considered Re8, resigning would been actually understandable, but i took my time.
> Comments on lichess.org/@/juancruzariastdf/blog/are-you-good-at-resigning/W83Xa6FB
Feeling qualified to answer because I have resigned against you already :D
Coming from similar experiences, I only tend to resign if the position is clear-cut enough that I am confident that i could win from my opponents side (given similar strength of me and my opponent obviously) without spending time, as in so trivially winning one could win easily by just blitzing out moves. Personally, this seems like a good rule of thumb, as the barrier moves with the player strength. 700s being down a piece? play on. 2000s being down a piece with zero compensation, resign.
Also its advisable to take a moment to think about even the weirdest moves before resigning, sometimes theres an odd resource to be found (eventho you might be lost, you might cause challenges for your opponent)
I recently had a friendly club game where my opponent also told me i could resign:
The position seemed infact hopeless, however Re8! came as a suprise, followed immidately by a blunder from white, who basically had mentally already moved on from the game. Its one case where theoretically White is still winning, but looking at the engine, the winning path is not trivial, and consists of quite a few only moves. If i wouldnt have considered Re8, resigning would been actually understandable, but i took my time.
For me it's very simple - I will resign if I don't want to continue playing. That's the only condition, position on the board does not matter (in the sense that I won't resign a lost position if I want to continue, of course the position will affect if I want to continue). Why should I ever assume my opponent can win a position and resign out of respect when it comes up enough that they can't, or make a blunder. As they say the hardest position to win is a winning position.
@AdamGaffney96 said in #13:
> For me it's very simple - I will resign if I don't want to continue playing. That's the only condition, position on the board does not matter (in the sense that I won't resign a lost position if I want to continue, of course the position will affect if I want to continue). Why should I ever assume my opponent can win a position and resign out of respect when it comes up enough that they can't, or make a blunder. As they say the hardest position to win is a winning position.
Hence the distinction between "winning" and "trivially winning"
Winning = up two clean pawns but with pieces on the board -> dont resign
Winning = Queen + King vs King Endgame without any time trouble -> resign.
"Winning" isnt always "Winning", but if there no complications left to create, i think also experience will show you wont win games at that point and can safely resign (apart from the maybe 1 in 1000 games where the opponent has an internet outage or mouseslip)
> For me it's very simple - I will resign if I don't want to continue playing. That's the only condition, position on the board does not matter (in the sense that I won't resign a lost position if I want to continue, of course the position will affect if I want to continue). Why should I ever assume my opponent can win a position and resign out of respect when it comes up enough that they can't, or make a blunder. As they say the hardest position to win is a winning position.
Hence the distinction between "winning" and "trivially winning"
Winning = up two clean pawns but with pieces on the board -> dont resign
Winning = Queen + King vs King Endgame without any time trouble -> resign.
"Winning" isnt always "Winning", but if there no complications left to create, i think also experience will show you wont win games at that point and can safely resign (apart from the maybe 1 in 1000 games where the opponent has an internet outage or mouseslip)
@aerosol2505 said in #14:
> Hence the distinction between "winning" and "trivially winning"
I was more just saying it as a point, of course when people are talking about that they mean when there's complications, not when it's KvKQ.
My point is still that the only reason I would resign is when I don't wish to continue playing, and there's plenty of situations where I want to still continue playing when trivially lost. If the opponent feels disrespected by that that's their problem not mine, they don't factor into my decision. I'm not gonna abandon a game and make them sit for an hour for no reason, that would be disrespectful, but playing until mate is not, that's just chess.
> Hence the distinction between "winning" and "trivially winning"
I was more just saying it as a point, of course when people are talking about that they mean when there's complications, not when it's KvKQ.
My point is still that the only reason I would resign is when I don't wish to continue playing, and there's plenty of situations where I want to still continue playing when trivially lost. If the opponent feels disrespected by that that's their problem not mine, they don't factor into my decision. I'm not gonna abandon a game and make them sit for an hour for no reason, that would be disrespectful, but playing until mate is not, that's just chess.
When it tell my pupils when it is time to resign i gave rhem 3 points - all of them should be true if resigning a "good" decision?
1. You are absolutly sure that the position is completly lost.
2. Your opion is clear that your opponent has the wisdom he needs to win this position.
3: If you would play the opponents pieces you are sure you would win this position too.
And point 3 i sometimes put to the test - they have to show that they can win the position with the opposite colours they have resigned.
1. You are absolutly sure that the position is completly lost.
2. Your opion is clear that your opponent has the wisdom he needs to win this position.
3: If you would play the opponents pieces you are sure you would win this position too.
And point 3 i sometimes put to the test - they have to show that they can win the position with the opposite colours they have resigned.
@chivoyage said in #10:
> No one has any obligation ever, to resign if they don't wish to, unless they are stalling and don't intend to play further. I also think it is more honourable to allow a mate. It is abhorrent when someone who has mate in 1 or 2 and lets time run out, wanting you to resign instead of taking the obvious mate. This kind of behavior should be punished.
> The bottomline should be that one should never let time run unless you are thinking about the next move/s. Stallers, whether winners or losers are bad sports.
Yes, that is very true. I have seen in some games, where the losing side, with around an hour, stalls for extended periods. This "strategy" should be unforgivable. It takes the opponent's time and is a blatant sign of disrespect.
> No one has any obligation ever, to resign if they don't wish to, unless they are stalling and don't intend to play further. I also think it is more honourable to allow a mate. It is abhorrent when someone who has mate in 1 or 2 and lets time run out, wanting you to resign instead of taking the obvious mate. This kind of behavior should be punished.
> The bottomline should be that one should never let time run unless you are thinking about the next move/s. Stallers, whether winners or losers are bad sports.
Yes, that is very true. I have seen in some games, where the losing side, with around an hour, stalls for extended periods. This "strategy" should be unforgivable. It takes the opponent's time and is a blatant sign of disrespect.
<Comment deleted by user>
@aerosol2505 ...Re8 is a very cool idea.
I remember reading another lichess post that went into the statistics of winning rates as a function of advantage (by rating). Sadly can't find it now.
I remember reading another lichess post that went into the statistics of winning rates as a function of advantage (by rating). Sadly can't find it now.
Nah just never resign. I was playing a 2100 FIDE rated player OTB (400 higher than me), who blundered mate in one up loads of material when I only had a rook, so anything can happen. Even as @aerosol2505 says, ‘2000s being down a piece with zero compensation, resign’, have you actually ever tried playing through a game in that position? Because chances happen surprisingly often.