On resigning

By -
Last night I was gifted a piece to a simple tactic. Both players are strong enough that this really shouldn't happen; and the result was never in doubt.

What did surprise me slightly was how long my opponent played on. I think that I would probably have resigned immediately - partly out of self-disgust, but mostly because I'd have been quite sure that the game was as good as over.

Come to think of it, I'd likely have resigned a bit earlier if I'd been on the other side of the previous game. Certainly playing on to the time control was correct, but once we'd got that far (move 30) I think I'd have thrown in the towel.

I have occasionally been genuinely insulted by opponents playing on in obviously lost positions. This absolutely wasn't the case in either of these games. Still, it can be a fine line between an admirable willingness to fight on, and a pointless determination to see the bitter end.

So what is the right time to resign? Am I expecting my opponents to give up too soon (and making it too easy for them when it's the other way round)? Or have I just run into a couple with an unusually never-say-die attitude?

Comments

Jonathan B said…
When to resign is an interesting question I think.

One factor you don't mention is the circumstances of the game. E.g. was this a league match and the player of the Black pieces was part of the away side? In that situation a person may be waiting for a lift home in any event so might as well have played on.

I've lost from better positions than you had - and indeed won from worse positions than your opponent had. Sometimes winning won positions isn't so easy (for me at least).

That all said, I do also wonder at the willingness of some people to spend hours of their time playing on transparently lost positions for no obvious reason.


Jonathan B
(of Streatham & Brixton Blog)
12 November 2007 at 12:25
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Boring System

By -
When you go out to play a game of chess, what do you hope for? A win would be nice, naturally, and I don't suppose many of us would keep playing unless we won a few. But there's little satisfaction in beating much weaker opponents, so we must want more than that. Being made to think, seeing ideas that we haven't seen before, taking the other guy on in a real struggle... isn't that what it's about? How, then, to explain a game like this? White plays the dullest opening he can think of; Black goes along with it. White offers a draw at move 15. Move 15! The position more than justifies the offer, and if we were two grandmasters playing for prize money, well, maybe it would all be understandable. But this is two club players trying to spend their evening doing something they enjoy. I played on a while in the hope that something would happen, but it never looked likely. Can either of us enjoyed this game? I know that I didn't. Well, people will play the Lo
Read more

Playing away

By -
Over at the Streatham & Brixton blog, Tom has been running a series of How To Improve type posts. I'm a bit slow off the mark, but a couple of them caught my eye, for differing reasons. The first was his recommendation to practise with a real board , setting up conditions to be as similar to tournament play as you can manage. I expect it's good advice; if nothing else it sounds like awfully hard work and I've a nasty feeling that this is the main thing that's required if you're serious about improving. What it reminded me of, though, was a match a year or two ago over at Wanstead (I think). I was playing a board or two below fellow-blogger kingscrusher, who had presumably been spending rather too much time playing online. Half an hour or so in he takes me to one side and says something like: "Dave, this over the board stuff, I'm finding it a bit unfamiliar. The thing is, it's very... it's very realistic isn't it?". Well, it mad
Read more

Seeing ghosts

By -
Why do I play bad moves? For many different reasons, no doubt, which makes it that much harder to stop doing it. A mistake that I find myself repeating, though, is to misevaluate a perfectly acceptable position as being slightly worse, and consequently play some inferior move to avoid it. In last week's game, for example, 9 ... Be7 was quite unnecessary. I was afraid that my pawns would be doubled and my king exposed after 9 ... Nc6 10 Bxf6; but in fact Black is fine here, and the exchange on f6 doesn't seem to be unfavourable at all. Instead I went into a sequence of exchanges and a very dull position. This week I'm White, and at move 12 I suddenly start to worry that things aren't going well. My opponent, my computer, and the cold light of day have all since convinced me that a normal move such as 12. Rb1 is just fine; but during the game it felt as though I was walking into some sort of disadvantage. So I decided to try and confuse matters, offering a pawn with
Read more