Playing out hopeless chess games/conceding
October 12, 2009 8:12 AM Subscribe
(Casual)ChessFilter: What is your personal policy on playing out hopeless chess games/conceding?
How do you know it's a waste of time to continue? Or do you religiously play out every game to the last move?
How do you know it's a waste of time to continue? Or do you religiously play out every game to the last move?
Matter of principle. Concede only when there are very few pieces left on the board and you have a major disadvantage. Otherwise, if you think you can't win then hold out for a stalemate! If the other player is getting tired, offer a draw.
posted by molecicco at 8:23 AM on October 12, 2009
posted by molecicco at 8:23 AM on October 12, 2009
Once I know I’m going to lose I still finish the game, but use much riskier tactics – that way I’m still experimenting, figuring out what works and what doesn’t, but still committed to losing badly
posted by Think_Long at 8:24 AM on October 12, 2009
posted by Think_Long at 8:24 AM on October 12, 2009
I always play it out. You never know when the other player will do something stupid.
posted by theichibun at 8:28 AM on October 12, 2009
posted by theichibun at 8:28 AM on October 12, 2009
At the level I play, there's always a chance of the opponent making a mistake, so it would have to be truly hopeless - like four pieces down, or imminent forced checkmate. If the queens are still on the board I usually wouldn't resign.
posted by brighton at 8:31 AM on October 12, 2009
posted by brighton at 8:31 AM on October 12, 2009
Knowing the 'proper' time to resign comes with experience, really. The easiest to recognize are truly hopeless position. If you see that you don't have the minimum material to win, or checkmate is lurking around the corner, you should definitely resign.
Many higher level games might resign after losing a minor piece without suitable compensation. But if you're learning and playing casually, it's absolutely fine and expected to play through losing a queen. That's how you learn. Chances are your opponent is learning, too, and you might discover an amazing tactic (or an opponent's blunder!) that will even the field.
The only time people will really get upset at you is if you drag out the game out of spite. If you want to continue playing an endgame for education, just mention to your opponent that you'd like to play the game on. Most would be happy to oblige.
posted by Herschel at 8:35 AM on October 12, 2009
Many higher level games might resign after losing a minor piece without suitable compensation. But if you're learning and playing casually, it's absolutely fine and expected to play through losing a queen. That's how you learn. Chances are your opponent is learning, too, and you might discover an amazing tactic (or an opponent's blunder!) that will even the field.
The only time people will really get upset at you is if you drag out the game out of spite. If you want to continue playing an endgame for education, just mention to your opponent that you'd like to play the game on. Most would be happy to oblige.
posted by Herschel at 8:35 AM on October 12, 2009
Absolutely never give up. If they're frustrated enough, they might get a little careless, make a blunder, and give you some room to come from behind. Check it out:
Botvinnik-Bronstein World Championship Match 1951, game 23
posted by aquafortis at 8:39 AM on October 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Botvinnik-Bronstein World Championship Match 1951, game 23
posted by aquafortis at 8:39 AM on October 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, never resign while playing blitz. :)
posted by Herschel at 8:43 AM on October 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Herschel at 8:43 AM on October 12, 2009 [2 favorites]
The only time to resign is when you have a lot of people sitting around waiting for their turn to play and you're hopelessly lost. Nobody likes to watch you play it out.
Something like you have a king and some unpromotable pawns and your opponent has something better than a king plus a knight and a bishop. E.g., K vs K, R, R, or K vs K, Q, or K, B vs K, B, B, N, P+.
But if you're at home with just one other person, play it out if you wish. I like the "make crazy, agressive, but not-necessarily sound moves" approach.
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:01 AM on October 12, 2009
Something like you have a king and some unpromotable pawns and your opponent has something better than a king plus a knight and a bishop. E.g., K vs K, R, R, or K vs K, Q, or K, B vs K, B, B, N, P+.
But if you're at home with just one other person, play it out if you wish. I like the "make crazy, agressive, but not-necessarily sound moves" approach.
posted by jeffamaphone at 9:01 AM on October 12, 2009
I think resigning in actually-hopeless scenarios is good etiquette, and generally a good life policy. While you always have /some/ chance of winning, that chance will often be statistically minute. Move on.
posted by cmyr at 9:03 AM on October 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cmyr at 9:03 AM on October 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
Herschel has it.
I resign when I think we both know that it's a lost game for me.
I usually play 10min blitz chess at gameknot. If I play someone my strength (Elo 1600-1700), that means I resign at 3 or 4 points. 2000+, it's 1 point. Less than 1300, 6 points. Less than 1100, 9 points.
It always depends on position, of course. These are my mid-game guidelines. In the end-game, it is harder to make up for the differences.
Also, I play along if someone has a beautiful forced mate.
Have fun playing!
posted by Psychnic at 9:13 AM on October 12, 2009
I resign when I think we both know that it's a lost game for me.
I usually play 10min blitz chess at gameknot. If I play someone my strength (Elo 1600-1700), that means I resign at 3 or 4 points. 2000+, it's 1 point. Less than 1300, 6 points. Less than 1100, 9 points.
It always depends on position, of course. These are my mid-game guidelines. In the end-game, it is harder to make up for the differences.
Also, I play along if someone has a beautiful forced mate.
Have fun playing!
posted by Psychnic at 9:13 AM on October 12, 2009
If there's any play left in the position, then play on. If you've got nothing left but your king, there may be stalemate possibilities. If there are swindle possibilities, try them. If you think your opponent doesn't know enough endgame theory, test him. I like to make things as difficult for my opponent as I can, always (well, except for the part about giving away pieces).
On the other hand, you said hopeless. If you don't have any hope, then resign. I agree about the etiquette. I think you should resign as soon as you know your opponent is not going to blow it.
posted by MtDewd at 9:23 AM on October 12, 2009
On the other hand, you said hopeless. If you don't have any hope, then resign. I agree about the etiquette. I think you should resign as soon as you know your opponent is not going to blow it.
posted by MtDewd at 9:23 AM on October 12, 2009
If my opponent is as good or better, in general, than I am (e.g., roughly equal or greater in rating, in tournament or rated online play), I ask myself: if our positions were reversed, am I certain I would know how to win? There's some positions where I'm sure I'm lost, but not sure how I'd go about winning from my opponent's position: in those cases I find it always worthwhile to play on, as a lesson in how to win from the opponent's position. If I'm playing a lower-rated player, I'll play to the point where I'm reasonably certain that a player of that rating can easily win. If it's just casual chess where players don't have a formal rating, the same thing but based on your general knowledge of their ability.
(And you didn't specifically ask, but if I'm on the clearly winning side, I'm never offended if my opponent makes me play out the mate regardless of his level. He has every right to do so if he wishes to.)
One other note: if you're playing in a tournament, with multiple games per day and fairly long time controls, it can sometimes be worth resigning a lost position rather than grinding it out to the bitter end in order to have a longer break between rounds. Whoever said "no one ever won by resigning" never had to play more than one game in a day.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:42 AM on October 12, 2009
(And you didn't specifically ask, but if I'm on the clearly winning side, I'm never offended if my opponent makes me play out the mate regardless of his level. He has every right to do so if he wishes to.)
One other note: if you're playing in a tournament, with multiple games per day and fairly long time controls, it can sometimes be worth resigning a lost position rather than grinding it out to the bitter end in order to have a longer break between rounds. Whoever said "no one ever won by resigning" never had to play more than one game in a day.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:42 AM on October 12, 2009
...and I forgot to say-
I never met anyone who minded playing out a game they were overwhelmingly winning.
posted by MtDewd at 11:29 AM on October 12, 2009
I never met anyone who minded playing out a game they were overwhelmingly winning.
posted by MtDewd at 11:29 AM on October 12, 2009
Having played on RedHotPawn quite a bit, I find that weaker players, say 1400s or lower, almost never resign at what I would consider a 'reasonable' point. It doesn't really bother me, but it does IMO reveal their still being a little clueless about the game. They're just not looking at the board in terms of "am I winning or losing at this point?", which eventually you should learn to do.
As a general rule of thumb, I think you should strongly consider resigning when you're down by a full rook (5 material points) or more, adjusted vs. the strength of your opponent. Of course, it really depends on whether you have any counterplay or not (and, conversely, if you're ahead you're more trying to shut down the opponent's counterplay rather than go directly for a mate, etc.), but if you can't see any promising attack and it's just that all the pieces are going to be gradually traded off, then you're already at a point where you can't win.
At a certain point, assuming both players know the game pretty well, it can become an issue of showing respect for your opponent. If you don't resign, it can be as if you're saying, "I think you can still make a big enough mistake not to win", which could be kind of a silly position against a strong opponent.
posted by dixie flatline at 4:57 PM on October 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
As a general rule of thumb, I think you should strongly consider resigning when you're down by a full rook (5 material points) or more, adjusted vs. the strength of your opponent. Of course, it really depends on whether you have any counterplay or not (and, conversely, if you're ahead you're more trying to shut down the opponent's counterplay rather than go directly for a mate, etc.), but if you can't see any promising attack and it's just that all the pieces are going to be gradually traded off, then you're already at a point where you can't win.
At a certain point, assuming both players know the game pretty well, it can become an issue of showing respect for your opponent. If you don't resign, it can be as if you're saying, "I think you can still make a big enough mistake not to win", which could be kind of a silly position against a strong opponent.
posted by dixie flatline at 4:57 PM on October 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
It depends how good you are and how good your opponent is. And it depends on the nature of the game. It's well known that "nobody ever won a chess game by resigning," so if winning is that important, never resign. If your relationship to the other player is important, not resigning a game where he has an easy and obvious win (which is dependent on your relative skill levels) is insulting. Like saying "I don't think you can do this simple thing." Sometimes you want to see if they do know how--e.g. do they know how to force mate with a knight and a bishop against a lone king?
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:33 PM on October 12, 2009
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:33 PM on October 12, 2009
If you're playing in person, not for points, with a friend, you should play the game out relative to the seriousness of the game. If the game is quite serious (you're both good and considering the moves well, etc) then you can resign when you feel like it's hopeless (taking into account what people say above). With decreasing seriousness of the game (I'm taking this to mean vastly different skill levels, or playing faster, less well considered games) should come an increasing likelihood that you'll play it out. It's no fun to play a game where there's not a lot of intellectual stimulation (nonserious games) where your opponent also denies you the fun of taking all their pieces. Also, don't be the dick who just starts throwing pieces away when you feel the game is hopeless as this gives your opponent the same shitty feeling and makes them never want to play with you again.
posted by beerbajay at 10:51 PM on October 12, 2009
posted by beerbajay at 10:51 PM on October 12, 2009
I've never been good enough to resign. I haven't played recently, but when I did, the furthest I ever saw defeat was maybe 2-3 moves ahead, in which case, it doesn't really save you much to resign.
On a related note, I have some friends who play Go. Resigning there is an interesting phenomenon. A game can take a long time to be completed after it's essentially hopeless for one of the players. For someone like me who barely knows the rules, it can be extremely difficult to see this. I've often seen one of my friends actually ask his opponent (obviously during friendly games) whether he should resign. My friend always seems to be right that the game is hopeless, but he's not 100% sure. The cost of continuing a long, probably hopeless game is high enough that he'd rather just resign and have his opponent simply tell him why it was hopeless. Of course this only makes sense when you're playing against a much better opponent (which in Go, often means playing with a handicap).
posted by ErWenn at 10:53 AM on October 17, 2009
On a related note, I have some friends who play Go. Resigning there is an interesting phenomenon. A game can take a long time to be completed after it's essentially hopeless for one of the players. For someone like me who barely knows the rules, it can be extremely difficult to see this. I've often seen one of my friends actually ask his opponent (obviously during friendly games) whether he should resign. My friend always seems to be right that the game is hopeless, but he's not 100% sure. The cost of continuing a long, probably hopeless game is high enough that he'd rather just resign and have his opponent simply tell him why it was hopeless. Of course this only makes sense when you're playing against a much better opponent (which in Go, often means playing with a handicap).
posted by ErWenn at 10:53 AM on October 17, 2009
Happened to run across this blog today.
Also- follow the 07/2006 link.
posted by MtDewd at 12:45 PM on October 23, 2009
Also- follow the 07/2006 link.
posted by MtDewd at 12:45 PM on October 23, 2009
« Older Any tandem couples out there working for the US... | Where to get spiced wafers in NYC? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
About the only time I'd ever concede was when I'd made a stupid mistake and lost a Queen way too early.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:22 AM on October 12, 2009