Main
Date: 29 Dec 2005 06:33:56
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
Subject: Not resigning - worth it?
Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.

Resigning is an abrupt ending to the game, well before it's rightful
conclusion - checkmate.

By playing on in lost positions, I often wear our my opponent, and he
can blunder away his winning advantage, or fall victim to a swindle of
mine (I have been on the wrong side too). Even if I end up losing, I
often wind up learning more about endgames, and how to win if my
opponent refuses to resign, just like me!

However, this has made me enemies on the website, which I have blocked.
Do you think it is worth it? To illustrate my point, here's one of my
favourite games ever played on that website
(http://chesscolony.com/?rfr=hildanknight), in which I blunder away
material but win by attacking his King.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bd6 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 0-0 a6 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4 Nge7 7 Nc3 Nxd4 8
Qxd4 0-0 9 Bg5 Qe8 10 f4 b6 11 Rae1?? Bc5 12 Ne2 Bxd4+ 13 Nxd4 a5 14 f5
Bb7 15 f6 gxf6 16 Bxf6 Ng6 17 Nf5 h5 18 Rf3 Kh7 19 Rh3 Nf4?? 20 Rh4!
Nxg2?? 21 Rxh5+ Kg6 22 Rh6# or 21...Kg8 22 Rh8#.





 
Date: 04 Jan 2006 19:51:22
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Let's play the "annoy your opponent game", shall we?
Nick wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > "Winners" and "takers" are efficiency driven people. They do
> > > not give a hoot about the cultural glue that has held traditional
> > > communities together through thick and thin.
> >
> > I have a theory that American players now stink internationally because
> > we teach children that it's rude to exploit the intellectually inferior, ...
>
> Perhaps Americans tend to be among the 'intellectually inferior'. :-)
>
> I happened to look at the results of the 2005 International Physics
> Olympiad (in Spain). Each participating country can send a team
> of five students who have not yet entered university. There's not
> an official team competition, but the best students can win gold,
> silver, or bronze medals.
>
> I asked some people with no particular knowledge of physics who
> they assumed would have done best at the Physics Olympiad.
> They usually assumed that affluent Western countries, such as
> the United States and Germany, as well as Japan and Israel
> should have done the best. Their assumptions were wrong.
>
> Each national team has five students. The top 46 students won
> gold medals. Only two Americans (one of whom may have been
> an Asian immigrant) and one German (apparently with a Russian
> name) were among the gold medal winners. No one from Japan,
> Israel, the UK, or France won a gold medal. In contrast, all
> five students from Taiwan and all five students from China
> won gold medals. Four of the students from Russia won
> gold medals. Three students from each of Hungary, Indonesia,
> Romania, and Singapore (a tiny country) won gold medals.

Two, not three, students from Indonesia won gold medals.

> Two students from each of India, Iran, Korea, Thailand,
> Turkey,and Ukraine also won gold medals.



 
Date: 04 Jan 2006 19:40:13
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Let's play the "annoy your opponent game", shall we?
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > "Winners" and "takers" are efficiency driven people. They do
> > not give a hoot about the cultural glue that has held traditional
> > communities together through thick and thin.
>
> I have a theory that American players now stink internationally because
> we teach children that it's rude to exploit the intellectually inferior, ...

Perhaps Americans tend to be among the 'intellectually inferior'. :-)

I happened to look at the results of the 2005 International Physics
Olympiad (in Spain). Each participating country can send a team
of five students who have not yet entered university. There's not
an official team competition, but the best students can win gold,
silver, or bronze medals.

I asked some people with no particular knowledge of physics who
they assumed would have done best at the Physics Olympiad.
They usually assumed that affluent Western countries, such as
the United States and Germany, as well as Japan and Israel
should have done the best. Their assumptions were wrong.

Each national team has five students. The top 46 students won
gold medals. Only two Americans (one of whom may have been
an Asian immigrant) and one German (apparently with a Russian
name) were among the gold medal winners. No one from Japan,
Israel, the UK, or France won a gold medal. In contrast, all
five students from Taiwan and all five students from China
won gold medals. Four of the students from Russia won
gold medals. Three students from each of Hungary, Indonesia,
Romania, and Singapore (a tiny country) won gold medals.
Two students from each of India, Iran, Korea, Thailand,
Turkey,and Ukraine also won gold medals.

--Nick



 
Date: 04 Jan 2006 15:43:26
From: arodobop
Subject: Re: Let's play the "annoy your opponent game", shall we?
Gordon wrote:
In India, where they have a caste system, the culture is much more
suited to recognizing superior talent, praising it for being superior,
and encouraging it to develop without regard to the self-esteem of
those who should find another hobby.


Tell that to the starving class. Have you ever been to India, Gordon?
If not, don't be idiotic and make asinine assumptions.



 
Date: 03 Jan 2006 16:52:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Ray Gordon wrote:
> >>> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
> >>> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
> >>> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.
> >>
> >> If you want much stronger players never to play with you or teach you
> >> outside of your games together, you're doing it perfectly.
> >
> > Who wants to learn from snobs?
>
> You mean players who BECOME snobs because they don't feel like being trapped
> for an hour in a tournament hall to secure one rating point while up a
> knight?
>

Ok, this statement is just dumb. If you're playing in a tournament,
you've committed yourself to spending a certain amount of time sitting
at the board playing the game. If it's a G/90 game, you went in
expecting to spend 3 hours playing. If the game happens to finish
early, that's bonus time. But being mad at your opponent for forcing
you to honor the time committment that you already made is just lame.

>
> >There are plenty of non-snobs who are friendly and willing to interact with
> >lower rated players.
>
> Interacting is one thing: I fucked a very hot 1350 chick once, and was not a
> snob about it at all!
>

You just manage to be rude on every possible level, don't you?


> However, a 1350-rated player who refuses to resign a lost position will get
> one, and only one, lesson from me, and that's how to finish off a game he
> should have resigned.
>

And speaking on behalf of 1400-ish players everywhere, I'll say that
sometimes that's exactly the lesson we're looking for!!! I've been in
games where I knew I was lost, but I asked myself how I would force the
win if the roles were reversed, and I didn't know. So I played it out,
for the sole purpose of learning from my opponent's technique. Of
course, the fact that my opponent's occasionally blunder and let me
swindle them out of the win doesn't hurt any, but I've also done this
against strong players who were very unlikely to blunder, just to learn
from them.

> Also, the time you spend playing on could be spent learning a great deal
> more. Very strong players are far more likely to play against weaker
> players who show good instincts, including knowing when to give up the
> fight.

Nice people who happen to be strong players won't discriminate about
which weaker players they'll play against. But obviously, you don't
know anything about being nice.

--Richard



  
Date: 05 Jan 2006 23:19:14
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Ok, this statement is just dumb. If you're playing in a tournament,
> you've committed yourself to spending a certain amount of time sitting
> at the board playing the game. If it's a G/90 game, you went in
> expecting to spend 3 hours playing. If the game happens to finish
> early, that's bonus time. But being mad at your opponent for forcing
> you to honor the time committment that you already made is just lame.

I don't think anybody is disputing the losing player's right to extend
the game until his flag falls.

What I'm (and I think Ray, although I don't want to put words in his
mouth) trying to point out is that there is a very real cost to doing
so.

I am not - and never will - advocate resigning if you do not understand
how your opponent will beat you. That's not what I've said in this
thread, and it's not really what Ray's said in this thread.

So let's take all those positions off the table. Let's just talk about
positions where it would take an uncharacteristically monumental blunder
for your opponent to lose the game. What that "uncharacteristically
monumental blunder" is obviously varies with skill - for Topalev, it
might be a solid pawn up for nothing, with little material on the board.
For players of my skill it's probably something like a piece or more
down with no active counterplay. For a 1100-rated player it's probably
something like two pieces down with queens off the board, and no
attacking chances.

There's nothing against the rules of football which says that a team up
three towndowns with 10 minutes to go shouldn't throw bombs and try to
run up the score - yet this is considered bad form. You run the ball,
you don't fight for extra yards, and the defending team doesn't try to
take your head off with every hit. It's not in the rules of the game,
but it's simple good sportsmanship.

Why is it so bizzare to expect something similar in chess?

(And furthermore, I think that people who get pissy about their
opponents are not resigning are being stupid. If I think my opponent is
a bad sport, I'll simply try to avoid playing him again and not
post-mortem with me.)

-Ron


   
Date: 06 Jan 2006 03:07:57
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
En/na Ron ha escrit:

> I don't think anybody is disputing the losing player's right to extend
> the game until his flag falls.
>
> What I'm (and I think Ray, although I don't want to put words in his
> mouth) trying to point out is that there is a very real cost to doing
> so.
> (...)
> I'll simply try to avoid playing him again and not post-mortem with me.
>
> -Ron

I understand your point of view but I would like to add something:

- For me post-mortem analysis is very important no matter I'm stronger
or weaker than my opponent. I like to know what He was thinking during
the game and to check if my ideas were correct or not. To punish our
opponent with no postmortem is also a self punishement.

- Another thing is to avoid playing someone. That can be acomplished in
friendly games and I understand someone can not feel "friendly" in that
cases. But in chess tournaments people do not choose opponent, ... what
do to now if we have to play another time, to resign?

- The same can be write about continuing a level game. If a player is a
fighter He will continue no matter the game be level or inferior (and
knowing how easy can our opponent continue having a level or better
game). Do you think there is a real cost in that cases? ... Would
answer the same if our opponent is stronger and finally wins the game?

AT



  
Date: 04 Jan 2006 03:20:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>> You mean players who BECOME snobs because they don't feel like being
>> trapped
>> for an hour in a tournament hall to secure one rating point while up a
>> knight?
>>
>
> Ok, this statement is just dumb. If you're playing in a tournament,
> you've committed yourself to spending a certain amount of time sitting
> at the board playing the game.

Yes, 5-10 minutes of my time and up to ALL of your time. Perhaps I'd rather
go home or to the bar, or pick up a clerk and fuck her in her hotel room
rather than polishing off a 1200 at a turtle's pace.


>If it's a G/90 game, you went in
> expecting to spend 3 hours playing. If the game happens to finish
> early, that's bonus time.

If the game takes more than 10 minutes, that's penalty time. Slow chess is
for retards.

I can win a clearly won game against a weaker player in 30-45 seconds most
of the time, without serious error, and often when the opponent's moves are
blatantly obvious and mine are not.

Another good idea is to resign if you start hearing your opponent saying
"You want some more, CHUMP?" after every move.

In boxing, the decision to stop the fight is a matter of life and death. In
chess, it's a matter of wasted time.


>But being mad at your opponent for forcing
> you to honor the time committment that you already made is just lame.

Who said mad? Just unwilling to play against him unless I have to.

I accept that he can drag on the game, at which point I might just get
cruel. Ever see Nakamura checkmate with three knights? It's funny.



>> >There are plenty of non-snobs who are friendly and willing to interact
>> >with
>> >lower rated players.
>>
>> Interacting is one thing: I fucked a very hot 1350 chick once, and was
>> not a
>> snob about it at all!
>>
>
> You just manage to be rude on every possible level, don't you?

Chicks fuck assholes. Blame them.


>> However, a 1350-rated player who refuses to resign a lost position will
>> get
>> one, and only one, lesson from me, and that's how to finish off a game he
>> should have resigned.
>>
>
> And speaking on behalf of 1400-ish players everywhere,

Memories of the EF Hutton-induced silence abound....

>I'll say that
> sometimes that's exactly the lesson we're looking for!!!

Without the $25 an hour the guy giving it to you is looking for.

While your opponent is teaching you chess, you are teaching your opponent
how to tolerate weak idiots who refuse to resign.

I sometimes even resign non-tournament games just to punish myself for not
finding a winning move.

Why not extend this strategy to surviving to the next time control to make
him stay ANOTHER hour?


>I've been in
> games where I knew I was lost, but I asked myself how I would force the
> win if the roles were reversed, and I didn't know.

You can't know you are lost and not know how or why.


>So I played it out,
> for the sole purpose of learning from my opponent's technique.

What's in it for him?

>Of
> course, the fact that my opponent's occasionally blunder and let me
> swindle them out of the win doesn't hurt any,

Against a 1400 I've come back to win when down as much as the queen, and
saved positions that you wouldn't think could be saved.

Maybe if you ever have to play an 800-rated player who has your philosophy,
you'll understand mine. Don't forget to give him the hour-long postmortem,
while you are at it.


>but I've also done this
> against strong players who were very unlikely to blunder, just to learn
> from them.

Or laugh at them if they fuck up.

You have the right to piss me off by not resigning, and I have the right to
refuse to play skittles or do post-mortems.


>> Also, the time you spend playing on could be spent learning a great deal
>> more. Very strong players are far more likely to play against weaker
>> players who show good instincts, including knowing when to give up the
>> fight.
>
> Nice people who happen to be strong players won't discriminate about
> which weaker players they'll play against. But obviously, you don't
> know anything about being nice.

I thought this was a chess group rather than a nice group. You asked "should
I resign or not?" I said that not resigning obviously lost positions
against stronger players will generally put you on their shit list of people
who waste their time.

Now in a coffeehouse, I'd play you all day because you'd make me look like
Fischer to the hot chicks that your weak game wouldn't distract me from.





   
Date: 04 Jan 2006 17:19:34
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>If it's a G/90 game, you went in expecting to spend 3 hours playing.
>>If the game happens to finish early, that's bonus time.
>
> If the game takes more than 10 minutes, that's penalty time. Slow chess is
> for retards.
>
> I can win a clearly won game against a weaker player in 30-45 seconds most
> of the time, without serious error, and often when the opponent's moves are
> blatantly obvious and mine are not.

Ray, ... what does mean weaker than you?

If we are speaking about ratings (American in your case, �USCF?) very
few people playing chess tournaments can be weaker than you.

I have lost won games playing weaker players with time enough. And I'm
not an special case, ... all people can lost a won game.

I posted here an example of GM Korchnoi blundering his queen and there
are other examples at high level.

Please do not be stupidly arrogant. It seems to me that if you become
stronger and get your "desired strong rating you published here" you
will be insultant with some of the comments you have wrote here in RGCA.

... But the problem is that you are very far to that strengh and you are
arrogant to people who are not weaker than you!!

AT



    
Date: 05 Jan 2006 17:48:15
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
> Ray, ... what does mean weaker than you?
>
> If we are speaking about ratings (American in your case, �USCF?) very few
> people playing chess tournaments can be weaker than you.

That's a lie. Only 10 percent of Americans ever make 2000.






     
Date: 06 Jan 2006 02:39:19
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>Ray, ... what does mean weaker than you?
>>
>>If we are speaking about ratings (American in your case, �USCF?) very few
>>people playing chess tournaments can be weaker than you.
>
> That's a lie. Only 10 percent of Americans ever make 2000.

A lie? not Maybe a misunderstanding, ... I have never played in your
country and I have not enough information.

For example in my country (Spain) sometimes there are a B tournament for
players rated under 2000. Only very few times we can see B sections for
under 2300 people and C sections. That mean a +2000 player can be
playing tournaments where He do not play with any under 2000 player.

Do you mean all players play in the same section of USA chess
tournaments or maybe you claim you are playing B or C section of that
tournaments?

AT



   
Date: 04 Jan 2006 12:30:29
From: Jimbo
Subject: Let's play the "annoy your opponent game", shall we?
When you find yourself having to play a crybaby snob like this Ray Gordon
guy, why not play along with his strategy? After all, why should
egotistical jerks like him have all the fun?

If he wants to whine about having to play a game he agreed to play, and he
starts being rude, take your time on your moves. In other words, be rude
back. Maybe someday he'll get a clue about courteous behavior when he
realizes that people can play the same snotty games he loves to play.

Come to think of it, though, maybe he finds himself in such situations so
often BECAUSE he is such a spoiled brat, and his opponents are already
deciding to teach him a lesson that he appears not capable of learning.

On the other hand, if you don't pamper him and pet him when he cries, you
will lose the velous opportunity to sit with him during an analysis
session in which there will be nothing to prevent him from running his mouth
with his sanctimonious, holier-than-though garbage. That would be a big
loss, wouldn't it? I'm sure everybody would love to have a post-mortem with
this lovely guy who feels offended when he wins a chess game that he agreed
to play at a certain time at a pre-determined time control. And if he and
others like him treat you like dirt, then you will only be able to associate
with decent people, and you will be deprived of all the fun times he can
give you.

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> You mean players who BECOME snobs because they don't feel like being
>>> trapped
>>> for an hour in a tournament hall to secure one rating point while up a
>>> knight?
>>>
>>
>> Ok, this statement is just dumb. If you're playing in a tournament,
>> you've committed yourself to spending a certain amount of time sitting
>> at the board playing the game.
>
> Yes, 5-10 minutes of my time and up to ALL of your time. Perhaps I'd
> rather go home or to the bar, or pick up a clerk and fuck her in her hotel
> room rather than polishing off a 1200 at a turtle's pace.
>
>
>>If it's a G/90 game, you went in
>> expecting to spend 3 hours playing. If the game happens to finish
>> early, that's bonus time.
>
> If the game takes more than 10 minutes, that's penalty time. Slow chess
> is for retards.
>
> I can win a clearly won game against a weaker player in 30-45 seconds most
> of the time, without serious error, and often when the opponent's moves
> are blatantly obvious and mine are not.
>
> Another good idea is to resign if you start hearing your opponent saying
> "You want some more, CHUMP?" after every move.
>
> In boxing, the decision to stop the fight is a matter of life and death.
> In chess, it's a matter of wasted time.
>
>
>>But being mad at your opponent for forcing
>> you to honor the time committment that you already made is just lame.
>
> Who said mad? Just unwilling to play against him unless I have to.
>
> I accept that he can drag on the game, at which point I might just get
> cruel. Ever see Nakamura checkmate with three knights? It's funny.
>
>
>
>>> >There are plenty of non-snobs who are friendly and willing to interact
>>> >with
>>> >lower rated players.
>>>
>>> Interacting is one thing: I fucked a very hot 1350 chick once, and was
>>> not a
>>> snob about it at all!
>>>
>>
>> You just manage to be rude on every possible level, don't you?
>
> Chicks fuck assholes. Blame them.
>
>
>>> However, a 1350-rated player who refuses to resign a lost position will
>>> get
>>> one, and only one, lesson from me, and that's how to finish off a game
>>> he
>>> should have resigned.
>>>
>>
>> And speaking on behalf of 1400-ish players everywhere,
>
> Memories of the EF Hutton-induced silence abound....
>
>>I'll say that
>> sometimes that's exactly the lesson we're looking for!!!
>
> Without the $25 an hour the guy giving it to you is looking for.
>
> While your opponent is teaching you chess, you are teaching your opponent
> how to tolerate weak idiots who refuse to resign.
>
> I sometimes even resign non-tournament games just to punish myself for not
> finding a winning move.
>
> Why not extend this strategy to surviving to the next time control to make
> him stay ANOTHER hour?
>
>
>>I've been in
>> games where I knew I was lost, but I asked myself how I would force the
>> win if the roles were reversed, and I didn't know.
>
> You can't know you are lost and not know how or why.
>
>
>>So I played it out,
>> for the sole purpose of learning from my opponent's technique.
>
> What's in it for him?
>
>>Of
>> course, the fact that my opponent's occasionally blunder and let me
>> swindle them out of the win doesn't hurt any,
>
> Against a 1400 I've come back to win when down as much as the queen, and
> saved positions that you wouldn't think could be saved.
>
> Maybe if you ever have to play an 800-rated player who has your
> philosophy, you'll understand mine. Don't forget to give him the
> hour-long postmortem, while you are at it.
>
>
>>but I've also done this
>> against strong players who were very unlikely to blunder, just to learn
>> from them.
>
> Or laugh at them if they fuck up.
>
> You have the right to piss me off by not resigning, and I have the right
> to refuse to play skittles or do post-mortems.
>
>
>>> Also, the time you spend playing on could be spent learning a great deal
>>> more. Very strong players are far more likely to play against weaker
>>> players who show good instincts, including knowing when to give up the
>>> fight.
>>
>> Nice people who happen to be strong players won't discriminate about
>> which weaker players they'll play against. But obviously, you don't
>> know anything about being nice.
>
> I thought this was a chess group rather than a nice group. You asked
> "should I resign or not?" I said that not resigning obviously lost
> positions against stronger players will generally put you on their shit
> list of people who waste their time.
>
> Now in a coffeehouse, I'd play you all day because you'd make me look like
> Fischer to the hot chicks that your weak game wouldn't distract me from.
>
>
>




    
Date: 04 Jan 2006 14:36:55
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Let's play the "annoy your opponent game", shall we?
Let me start off by saying that, as a hobbyist who _never_ participates
in "serious" chess and who enjoys "casual" chess as per the _tradition_
of parlor and cafe, I appreciate gentlemanly behaviour a lot. I would
also like to keep Mr. Ray Gordon's personality _particulars_ out of my
comments as unnecessary to the _serious_ cultural issues at stake here.

Very much like the past colonialist policies of European powers have had
a lasting impact on, say, African cultures, Western modernity has had
an impact on the _culture_ of chess. For example, a generation ago, many
Euroamericans embraced Mr. Fischer as a shining icon of the kind of
"new"
man that the "West" was capable of "producing", way superior to anything
that the competing modernist alternative (i.e., the Soviet system) could
come up with... Apparently, it was only a minority of Euroamericans who
may have noticed that Mr. Fischer was way less gentlemanly than Mr.
Spassky! Ideology comes first, you know...

The _actual_ values of the modern workplace inevitably dictate _all_
cultural behavior. They slowly corrode _all_ traditions, especially
the gentlemanly ones... So, next time one comes across a chess hobby-
ist who incessantly talks about institutionalized chess (especially,
ratings) or deeply delves into the lives of GMs, well, sooner rather
than later this person will come across manifestly ungentlemanly be-
havior. "Winners" and "takers" are efficiency driven people. They do
not give a hoot about the cultural glue that has held traditional com-
munities together through thick and thin.

To conclude, the modernist participant in "serious" chess is one of
many _creations_ of modernity with its clarion call for people who
have seen the progressive light to jettison gentlemanly behavior and
similar baroque fetters in favor of "liberating" individualism that
invariably comes with a healthy dose of cultural insularity. These
ELO ratings are _so_ comforting, wow! Unfortunately...

Excuse the rant!

Major Cat

Jimbo wrote:
>
> When you find yourself having to play a crybaby snob like this Ray Gordon
> guy, why not play along with his strategy? After all, why should
> egotistical jerks like him have all the fun?
>
> If he wants to whine about having to play a game he agreed to play, and he
> starts being rude, take your time on your moves. In other words, be rude
> back. Maybe someday he'll get a clue about courteous behavior when he
> realizes that people can play the same snotty games he loves to play.
>
> Come to think of it, though, maybe he finds himself in such situations so
> often BECAUSE he is such a spoiled brat, and his opponents are already
> deciding to teach him a lesson that he appears not capable of learning.
>
> On the other hand, if you don't pamper him and pet him when he cries, you
> will lose the velous opportunity to sit with him during an analysis
> session in which there will be nothing to prevent him from running his mouth
> with his sanctimonious, holier-than-though garbage. That would be a big
> loss, wouldn't it? I'm sure everybody would love to have a post-mortem with
> this lovely guy who feels offended when he wins a chess game that he agreed
> to play at a certain time at a pre-determined time control. And if he and
> others like him treat you like dirt, then you will only be able to associate
> with decent people, and you will be deprived of all the fun times he can
> give you.



     
Date: 04 Jan 2006 23:00:04
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Let's play the "annoy your opponent game", shall we?
> "Winners" and "takers" are efficiency driven people. They do
> not give a hoot about the cultural glue that has held traditional com-
> munities together through thick and thin.

I have a theory that American players now stink internationally because we
teach children that it's rude to exploit the intellectually inferior, and
that we should treat everyone's ideas and point of view as valid, with
self-esteem and social harmony trumping truth.

In India, where they have a caste system, the culture is much more suited to
recognizing superior talent, praising it for being superior, and encouraging
it to develop without regard to the self-esteem of those who should find
another hobby.





      
Date: 04 Jan 2006 20:20:11
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Let's play the "annoy your opponent game", shall we?
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> > "Winners" and "takers" are efficiency driven people. They do
> > not give a hoot about the cultural glue that has held traditional com-
> > munities together through thick and thin.
>
> I have a theory that American players now stink internationally because we
> teach children that it's rude to exploit the intellectually inferior, and
> that we should treat everyone's ideas and point of view as valid, with
> self-esteem and social harmony trumping truth.
>

Euroamerican children of some practical intelligence grow up to become
adults _pretending_, for the most part, to be bleeding...hearts. This
is one of the behavioral cornerstones of all culturally expansionist
peoples whose imperium has reached successful maturity. Hypocrisy always
rules the roost in the world of the unassailable cultural expansionists!
Ironically, the _very_same_ hypocrisy is encountered in people's
everyday
lives back at "home" (e.g., Europe and North America). It is this very
type of hypocrisy that progressively translates into a cold, impersonal
society where _cut_throat_ competition is the only reality and
realization
that matters (a kind of generalized civil war)... Inevitably, culturally
expansionist peoples live in atomized societies, seeking to manage their
quest with layers upon layers of organization and technology that know
of
efficiency and very little else...

To conclude, the public pursuit of talent presupposes a cultural
context.
There is the talent of the gladiators in imperial Rome and then there is
the talent (or, perhaps, the lack thereof) of a Socrates in the much
smaller
but decidedly imperialistic and expansionist Athenian _democracy_...

Regards,

Major Cat



   
Date: 03 Jan 2006 23:23:18
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> >> You mean players who BECOME snobs because they don't feel like being
> >> trapped
> >> for an hour in a tournament hall to secure one rating point while up a
> >> knight?
> >>
> >
> > Ok, this statement is just dumb. If you're playing in a tournament,
> > you've committed yourself to spending a certain amount of time sitting
> > at the board playing the game.
>
> Yes, 5-10 minutes of my time and up to ALL of your time. Perhaps I'd rather
> go home or to the bar, or pick up a clerk and fuck her in her hotel room
> rather than polishing off a 1200 at a turtle's pace.

Splendid examples of what the pursuit of efficiency within the
context of "serious" chess may entail! 8 >)

>
> >If it's a G/90 game, you went in
> > expecting to spend 3 hours playing. If the game happens to finish
> > early, that's bonus time.
>
> If the game takes more than 10 minutes, that's penalty time. Slow chess is
> for retards.

Question: Is "casual" chess (irrespective of the pace) also for
"retards"? What about very fast "casual" chess?

>
> I can win a clearly won game against a weaker player in 30-45 seconds most
> of the time, without serious error, and often when the opponent's moves are
> blatantly obvious and mine are not.

Is this how Mr. Fischer did it when he was not forced to play slow
games?

>
> Another good idea is to resign if you start hearing your opponent saying
> "You want some more, CHUMP?" after every move.
>
> In boxing, the decision to stop the fight is a matter of life and death. In
> chess, it's a matter of wasted time.

Yes, efficiency again...

>
> >But being mad at your opponent for forcing
> > you to honor the time committment that you already made is just lame.
>
> Who said mad? Just unwilling to play against him unless I have to.

Efficiency...

>
> I accept that he can drag on the game, at which point I might just get
> cruel. Ever see Nakamura checkmate with three knights? It's funny.
>
> >> >There are plenty of non-snobs who are friendly and willing to interact
> >> >with
> >> >lower rated players.
> >>
> >> Interacting is one thing: I fucked a very hot 1350 chick once, and was
> >> not a
> >> snob about it at all!
> >>
> >
> > You just manage to be rude on every possible level, don't you?
>
> Chicks fuck assholes. Blame them.

Modern women in the West tend to view men who are socially
inconsiderate as prospective winners in the grand _cut_throat_
competition of modern(ist) life. This has been going on for a long
time... To this effect, military combat is kids' stuff compared
to what happens when the woman is cut out of the _same_ cloth as
the male "winner"! 8 >)

>
> >> However, a 1350-rated player who refuses to resign a lost position will
> >> get
> >> one, and only one, lesson from me, and that's how to finish off a game he
> >> should have resigned.
> >>
> >
> > And speaking on behalf of 1400-ish players everywhere,
>
> Memories of the EF Hutton-induced silence abound....
>
> >I'll say that
> > sometimes that's exactly the lesson we're looking for!!!
>
> Without the $25 an hour the guy giving it to you is looking for.
>
> While your opponent is teaching you chess, you are teaching your opponent
> how to tolerate weak idiots who refuse to resign.

Well, this _is_ a skill that pertains to "serious" chess combat!

>
> I sometimes even resign non-tournament games just to punish myself for not
> finding a winning move.

Proof enough that a non-tournament game can belong to the world of
_uncompromising_ "serious" chess...

>
> Why not extend this strategy to surviving to the next time control to make
> him stay ANOTHER hour?

Hmm, a "chessic" battlefield tactic aiming at introducing inefficiency
in your opponent's "chessic" world... From "Chess is my Life" to "Chess
is _Unlimited_ Warfare"! 8 >)

>
> >I've been in
> > games where I knew I was lost, but I asked myself how I would force the
> > win if the roles were reversed, and I didn't know.
>
> You can't know you are lost and not know how or why.

The ex ante determination and the ex post result are not guaranteed
to coincide. The real world entails "chessic" friction...

>
> >So I played it out,
> > for the sole purpose of learning from my opponent's technique.
>
> What's in it for him?

Who knows, and, to the extent that his persevering opponent has his
own war agenda, it does not matter. This _is_ war even if it entails
asymmetric beliefs, assumptions and fighting means.

>
> >Of
> > course, the fact that my opponent's occasionally blunder and let me
> > swindle them out of the win doesn't hurt any,
>
> Against a 1400 I've come back to win when down as much as the queen, and
> saved positions that you wouldn't think could be saved.
>
> Maybe if you ever have to play an 800-rated player who has your philosophy,
> you'll understand mine. Don't forget to give him the hour-long postmortem,
> while you are at it.

That is why hazing in military academies is viewed as "undesirably
necessary" by military establishments!

>
> >but I've also done this
> > against strong players who were very unlikely to blunder, just to learn
> > from them.
>
> Or laugh at them if they fuck up.
>
> You have the right to piss me off by not resigning, and I have the right to
> refuse to play skittles or do post-mortems.

Something like the Geneva convention...

>
> >> Also, the time you spend playing on could be spent learning a great deal
> >> more. Very strong players are far more likely to play against weaker
> >> players who show good instincts, including knowing when to give up the
> >> fight.
> >
> > Nice people who happen to be strong players won't discriminate about
> > which weaker players they'll play against. But obviously, you don't
> > know anything about being nice.
>
> I thought this was a chess group rather than a nice group.

It is human to want to fuse the best of two "chessic" worlds. Un-
fortunately, "being nice" is a losing strategy when it comes to
the _ugly_ kernel of "serious" chess warfare. When did you first
realize this Mr. Fischer?

> You asked "should
> I resign or not?" I said that not resigning obviously lost positions
> against stronger players will generally put you on their shit list of people
> who waste their time.
>
> Now in a coffeehouse, I'd play you all day because you'd make me look like
> Fischer to the hot chicks that your weak game wouldn't distract me from.

I never realized that you engage (?) in "casual" chess activities
(retards?)
"Casual"...sex is an entirely different matter though! 8 >)

Regards,

Major Cat



    
Date: 04 Jan 2006 06:08:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>> > Ok, this statement is just dumb. If you're playing in a tournament,
>> > you've committed yourself to spending a certain amount of time sitting
>> > at the board playing the game.
>>
>> Yes, 5-10 minutes of my time and up to ALL of your time. Perhaps I'd
>> rather
>> go home or to the bar, or pick up a clerk and fuck her in her hotel room
>> rather than polishing off a 1200 at a turtle's pace.
>
> Splendid examples of what the pursuit of efficiency within the
> context of "serious" chess may entail! 8>)

How about you and the 1200 play skittles, leaving two less guys to claim the
hotel hotties.

I suppose you weren't at the Northern NJ Quads the day that they held the
Miss Teen New Jersey pageant downstairs.


>> >If it's a G/90 game, you went in
>> > expecting to spend 3 hours playing. If the game happens to finish
>> > early, that's bonus time.
>>
>> If the game takes more than 10 minutes, that's penalty time. Slow chess
>> is
>> for retards.
>
> Question: Is "casual" chess (irrespective of the pace) also for
> "retards"? What about very fast "casual" chess?

NFL players talk about having to adjust to "the speed of the game." The NBA
has a 24-second shot-clock and an 8-second half-court clock.

I don't differentiate tournament and practice, since they should all be
played at top intensity at all times, the way Fischer did. Then you never
have to turn your serious game on because you never turned it off.


>> I can win a clearly won game against a weaker player in 30-45 seconds
>> most
>> of the time, without serious error, and often when the opponent's moves
>> are
>> blatantly obvious and mine are not.
>
> Is this how Mr. Fischer did it when he was not forced to play slow
> games?

Fischer was so superior to his rivals that he could use his B repertoire and
beat you, without even showing you his aces.

Then again, I often say that a one-minute game of chess doesn't begin until
something hangs.


>> Another good idea is to resign if you start hearing your opponent saying
>> "You want some more, CHUMP?" after every move.
>>
>> In boxing, the decision to stop the fight is a matter of life and death.
>> In
>> chess, it's a matter of wasted time.
>
> Yes, efficiency again...

More or less. Also a matter of respect, as not knowing when to resign is a
sign of ignorance, or just a desire to piss off the stronger player.

For example, one time my opponent asked me to sign his scoresheet and I
wrote FUCK YOU in big letters on it. No punishment! I thought it was
pretentious.


>> >But being mad at your opponent for forcing
>> > you to honor the time committment that you already made is just lame.
>>
>> Who said mad? Just unwilling to play against him unless I have to.
>
> Efficiency...

Well he already wasted enough of my time.


>> > You just manage to be rude on every possible level, don't you?
>>
>> Chicks fuck assholes. Blame them.
>
> Modern women in the West tend to view men who are socially
> inconsiderate as prospective winners in the grand _cut_throat_
> competition of modern(ist) life. This has been going on for a long
> time... To this effect, military combat is kids' stuff compared
> to what happens when the woman is cut out of the _same_ cloth as
> the male "winner"! 8>)

More or less.



>> >I'll say that
>> > sometimes that's exactly the lesson we're looking for!!!
>>
>> Without the $25 an hour the guy giving it to you is looking for.
>>
>> While your opponent is teaching you chess, you are teaching your opponent
>> how to tolerate weak idiots who refuse to resign.
>
> Well, this _is_ a skill that pertains to "serious" chess combat!

And it is a skill that should not be overlooked. However, if your opponent
wishes he could end the game violently rather than through an obvious
checkmate, he will probably find the checkmate.

A strong player just usually knows when he's sunk. Then again, Fritz gives
people ideas, as have some of my "strong" opponents.


>> I sometimes even resign non-tournament games just to punish myself for
>> not
>> finding a winning move.
>
> Proof enough that a non-tournament game can belong to the world of
> _uncompromising_ "serious" chess...

I view the game as poisoned once I could have played better and know how or
why.


>> Why not extend this strategy to surviving to the next time control to
>> make
>> him stay ANOTHER hour?
>
> Hmm, a "chessic" battlefield tactic aiming at introducing inefficiency
> in your opponent's "chessic" world... From "Chess is my Life" to "Chess
> is _Unlimited_ Warfare"! 8>)

Or "make him work for the rating point."

I once toyed with the idea of entering a strong tournament with the idea of
making the GMs work through three time controls to beat me. Generally, just
playing your best is enough to frustrate them, as they tend to mail it in if
you don't have a title.



>> >I've been in
>> > games where I knew I was lost, but I asked myself how I would force the
>> > win if the roles were reversed, and I didn't know.
>>
>> You can't know you are lost and not know how or why.
>
> The ex ante determination and the ex post result are not guaranteed
> to coincide. The real world entails "chessic" friction...

How can you say you are lost without knowing how for yourself, instead of
reading it somewhere? (the book may be wrong).


>> >So I played it out,
>> > for the sole purpose of learning from my opponent's technique.
>>
>> What's in it for him?
>
> Who knows, and, to the extent that his persevering opponent has his
> own war agenda, it does not matter.

If the opponent wants skittles or a post-mortem, it should.


>This _is_ war even if it entails
> asymmetric beliefs, assumptions and fighting means.

That it is part of the battle doesn't mean it's a desirable part.

I don't mind finishing off weak players. It's a necessary evil. Great,
crushing moves are a good way to put a stop to the crap, or a quick
simplification to a won ending.


>> >Of
>> > course, the fact that my opponent's occasionally blunder and let me
>> > swindle them out of the win doesn't hurt any,
>>
>> Against a 1400 I've come back to win when down as much as the queen, and
>> saved positions that you wouldn't think could be saved.
>>
>> Maybe if you ever have to play an 800-rated player who has your
>> philosophy,
>> you'll understand mine. Don't forget to give him the hour-long
>> postmortem,
>> while you are at it.
>
> That is why hazing in military academies is viewed as "undesirably
> necessary" by military establishments!

If you break the chain, one group gets hosed.


>> >but I've also done this
>> > against strong players who were very unlikely to blunder, just to learn
>> > from them.
>>
>> Or laugh at them if they fuck up.
>>
>> You have the right to piss me off by not resigning, and I have the right
>> to
>> refuse to play skittles or do post-mortems.
>
> Something like the Geneva convention...

Not resigning burns bridges in chess. It's often the only lasting
impression a weak player will leave on a titled player, as well.

Then again, there was this time when I was in the Adam's k in the
pre-world open, and needed to break a $10.00 bill. Bisguier was around and
had $8.00, so I offered to play a quick game for $2.00. He won, but said he
didn't distinguish himself. He seemed strong enough for me.



>> > Nice people who happen to be strong players won't discriminate about
>> > which weaker players they'll play against. But obviously, you don't
>> > know anything about being nice.
>>
>> I thought this was a chess group rather than a nice group.
>
> It is human to want to fuse the best of two "chessic" worlds. Un-
> fortunately, "being nice" is a losing strategy when it comes to
> the _ugly_ kernel of "serious" chess warfare. When did you first
> realize this Mr. Fischer?

I'm not Fischer, but I'm quoting him.

I modeled my game after his as many did in the late 1980s. If Bobby did it,
why wouldn't I?

The man retired holding his title and a clear superiority over the rest of
the world which he may even have to this day.


>> You asked "should
>> I resign or not?" I said that not resigning obviously lost positions
>> against stronger players will generally put you on their shit list of
>> people
>> who waste their time.
>>
>> Now in a coffeehouse, I'd play you all day because you'd make me look
>> like
>> Fischer to the hot chicks that your weak game wouldn't distract me from.
>
> I never realized that you engage (?) in "casual" chess activities
> (retards?)

Means to an end (impressing chicks by beating their boyfriends or chump
friends in their presence). There is actually an old picture of me from
1990 that appeared in Philadelphia magazine, with me playing chess in a
coffeehouse against some guy while his hot chick girl/friend looks on.

I should dig up a copy of that and throw it up on my site, come to think of
it.


> "Casual"...sex is an entirely different matter though! 8>)

That's for another newsgroup.




     
Date: 04 Jan 2006 01:34:36
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Ray Gordon wrote:
> >
> > It is human to want to fuse the best of two "chessic" worlds. Un-
> > fortunately, "being nice" is a losing strategy when it comes to
> > the _ugly_ kernel of "serious" chess warfare. When did you first
> > realize this Mr. Fischer?
>
> I'm not Fischer, but I'm quoting him.

This was a rhetorical question. No sarcasm whatsoever was intended.
Obviously, you are not Mr. Fischer! 8 >)

> >> Now in a coffeehouse, I'd play you all day because you'd make me look
> >> like
> >> Fischer to the hot chicks that your weak game wouldn't distract me from.
> >
> > I never realized that you engage (?) in "casual" chess activities
> > (retards?)
>
> Means to an end (impressing chicks by beating their boyfriends or chump
> friends in their presence).

I understand.

> There is actually an old picture of me from
> 1990 that appeared in Philadelphia magazine, with me playing chess in a
> coffeehouse against some guy while his hot chick girl/friend looks on.
>
> I should dig up a copy of that and throw it up on my site, come to think of
> it.
>
> > "Casual"...sex is an entirely different matter though! 8>)
>
> That's for another newsgroup.

Agreed!



 
Date: 02 Jan 2006 21:11:24
From: Blue Knight
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Hi JLWS,

I completely agree - I am just about to claim a draw (in a
correspondence game) by perpetual check, even though my opponent has a
pawn on e2 (he's playing black).

It was only about 5 moves earlier that I was considering resigning the
position, but one last ditched attempt to grab a draw worked - if he had
avoided the temptation to capture pawns with his king, he would have won :)

Blue Knight


J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.
>
> Resigning is an abrupt ending to the game, well before it's rightful
> conclusion - checkmate.
>
> By playing on in lost positions, I often wear our my opponent, and he
> can blunder away his winning advantage, or fall victim to a swindle of
> mine (I have been on the wrong side too). Even if I end up losing, I
> often wind up learning more about endgames, and how to win if my
> opponent refuses to resign, just like me!
>
> However, this has made me enemies on the website, which I have blocked.
> Do you think it is worth it? To illustrate my point, here's one of my
> favourite games ever played on that website
> (http://chesscolony.com/?rfr=hildanknight), in which I blunder away
> material but win by attacking his King.
>
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bd6 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 0-0 a6 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4 Nge7 7 Nc3 Nxd4 8
> Qxd4 0-0 9 Bg5 Qe8 10 f4 b6 11 Rae1?? Bc5 12 Ne2 Bxd4+ 13 Nxd4 a5 14 f5
> Bb7 15 f6 gxf6 16 Bxf6 Ng6 17 Nf5 h5 18 Rf3 Kh7 19 Rh3 Nf4?? 20 Rh4!
> Nxg2?? 21 Rxh5+ Kg6 22 Rh6# or 21...Kg8 22 Rh8#.
>


  
Date: 04 Jan 2006 00:18:42
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Well, if you won't resign, then at least move quickly when you set your
traps, and make the trap interesting.

If there is a trap, then there's no reason to resign, nor would a stronger
player think less of you for setting one, since he would do the same thing
himself against you.

> Hi JLWS,
>
> I completely agree - I am just about to claim a draw (in a correspondence
> game) by perpetual check, even though my opponent has a pawn on e2 (he's
> playing black).
>
> It was only about 5 moves earlier that I was considering resigning the
> position, but one last ditched attempt to grab a draw worked - if he had
> avoided the temptation to capture pawns with his king, he would have won
> :)
>
> Blue Knight
>
>
> J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
>> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
>> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
>> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.
>>
>> Resigning is an abrupt ending to the game, well before it's rightful
>> conclusion - checkmate.
>>
>> By playing on in lost positions, I often wear our my opponent, and he
>> can blunder away his winning advantage, or fall victim to a swindle of
>> mine (I have been on the wrong side too). Even if I end up losing, I
>> often wind up learning more about endgames, and how to win if my
>> opponent refuses to resign, just like me!
>>
>> However, this has made me enemies on the website, which I have blocked.
>> Do you think it is worth it? To illustrate my point, here's one of my
>> favourite games ever played on that website
>> (http://chesscolony.com/?rfr=hildanknight), in which I blunder away
>> material but win by attacking his King.
>>
>> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bd6 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 0-0 a6 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4 Nge7 7 Nc3 Nxd4 8
>> Qxd4 0-0 9 Bg5 Qe8 10 f4 b6 11 Rae1?? Bc5 12 Ne2 Bxd4+ 13 Nxd4 a5 14 f5
>> Bb7 15 f6 gxf6 16 Bxf6 Ng6 17 Nf5 h5 18 Rf3 Kh7 19 Rh3 Nf4?? 20 Rh4!
>> Nxg2?? 21 Rxh5+ Kg6 22 Rh6# or 21...Kg8 22 Rh8#.






 
Date: 01 Jan 2006 19:55:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.

If you want much stronger players never to play with you or teach you
outside of your games together, you're doing it perfectly.





  
Date: 01 Jan 2006 20:23:29
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
>> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
>> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.
>
> If you want much stronger players never to play with you or teach you
> outside of your games together, you're doing it perfectly.

Who wants to learn from snobs? There are plenty of non-snobs who are
friendly and willing to interact with lower rated players.




   
Date: 04 Jan 2006 00:16:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>>> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
>>> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
>>> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.
>>
>> If you want much stronger players never to play with you or teach you
>> outside of your games together, you're doing it perfectly.
>
> Who wants to learn from snobs?

You mean players who BECOME snobs because they don't feel like being trapped
for an hour in a tournament hall to secure one rating point while up a
knight?


>There are plenty of non-snobs who are friendly and willing to interact with
>lower rated players.

Interacting is one thing: I fucked a very hot 1350 chick once, and was not a
snob about it at all!

However, a 1350-rated player who refuses to resign a lost position will get
one, and only one, lesson from me, and that's how to finish off a game he
should have resigned.

Also, the time you spend playing on could be spent learning a great deal
more. Very strong players are far more likely to play against weaker
players who show good instincts, including knowing when to give up the
fight.





    
Date: 04 Jan 2006 07:15:44
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> However, a 1350-rated player who refuses to resign a lost position will
> get one, and only one, lesson from me, and that's how to finish off a game
> he should have resigned.

You have a hard time living on the same planet with mere mortals and getting
the point, don't you?

Has it ever occurred to you that the people you look down your nose on don't
give a flip about having you participate in a post mortem with them? Why
would any normal person want to subject himself to your ego and snobbery?

If you get pissed off at having to play a chess game you agreed to play,
then by all means, act like a crybaby when the game is over. But don't
expect others to appreciate your snotty attitude, or even to care that it
hurts your delicate feelings.

And your point elsewhere about how you have a game next round and need to
rest is more snobbishness. You seem to think your opponent has some moral
obligation to help you win your next round. Win it by yourself and stop
blaming others for your failures.

People like you are not qualified to lecture others on courtesy and
sportsmanship.








     
Date: 05 Jan 2006 15:10:12
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Jimbo wrote:
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>However, a 1350-rated player who refuses to resign a lost position will
>>get one, and only one, lesson from me, and that's how to finish off a game
>>he should have resigned.
>
>
> You have a hard time living on the same planet with mere mortals and getting
> the point, don't you?

Well, but Ray has a point. If a definitively better player teaches a
lesson to you (and you like getting taught), then it is good manners to
make things interesting for him and not bore him to death with playing
on a dead lost position. By this I mean a position where the weaker
player knows it is dead lost. Instead it is much better to call a loss a
loss and begin another game instead.

Also your experience should be better with playing two games instead of
one and keeping at it with a queen less.

Claus-Juergen


      
Date: 06 Jan 2006 04:30:51
From:
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Claus-J�rgen_Heigl <[email protected] > wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
> > "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >>However, a 1350-rated player who refuses to resign a lost position will
> >>get one, and only one, lesson from me, and that's how to finish off a
> >>game he should have resigned.
> >
> > You have a hard time living on the same planet with mere mortals and
> > getting the point, don't you?
>
> Well, but Ray has a point. If a definitively better player teaches a
> lesson to you (and you like getting taught), then it is good manners to
> make things interesting for him and not bore him to death with playing
> on a dead lost position. By this I mean a position where the weaker
> player knows it is dead lost. Instead it is much better to call a loss a
> loss and begin another game instead.
>
> Also your experience should be better with playing two games instead of
> one and keeping at it with a queen less.
>
When I have made an incredibly stupid and highly costly blunder against a
worthy competitor, who has made no serious mistakes, I will apologize and
resign. Otherwise, I will play my best and strive to have a good game for
both of us. I have a current EOL of 1329, according to chess-mail and am
not playing tournaments. Even at 70, I have no reason to be a snob (yet)!

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families:
http://saluteheroes.org/ & http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !


     
Date: 05 Jan 2006 00:52:53
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
I have also said that tolerating this bad ettiquette and winning the game is
part of being high rated. One mistake against a 1600 costs me 32 rating
points, whereas it costs a 1200 only one. To keep a 2000 rating, one must
be far more consistent and polished in winning a won game, and the same is
true for the 2400 players relative to me.

If I'm down a pawn in a middlegame against Kasparov without compensation, I
would make one attempt to salvage the game (say by trying to make it so the
endgame won't be reached or maybe grab a perpetual check), and if that
failed, I'd throw in the towel. I wouldn't extend the game 25 moves just to
see how he would win K+4p against K+3.





      
Date: 05 Jan 2006 01:39:31
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If I'm down a pawn in a middlegame against Kasparov without compensation,
> I would make one attempt to salvage the game (say by trying to make it so
> the endgame won't be reached or maybe grab a perpetual check), and if that
> failed, I'd throw in the towel. I wouldn't extend the game 25 moves just
> to see how he would win K+4p against K+3.

Ah, so YOU get to make YOUR determination as to when to resign, but you
think it's rude of others to do so.

You are a snob.

(I await more hypocrisy.)




      
Date: 05 Jan 2006 02:19:09
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

> If I'm down a pawn in a middlegame against Kasparov without compensation, I
> would make one attempt to salvage the game (say by trying to make it so the
> endgame won't be reached or maybe grab a perpetual check), and if that
> failed, I'd throw in the towel. I wouldn't extend the game 25 moves just to
> see how he would win K+4p against K+3.

Well, ... you can try to avoid the exchange of a pair of rooks or at
least a pair of bishops.

AT



     
Date: 05 Jan 2006 00:50:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
> And your point elsewhere about how you have a game next round and need to
> rest is more snobbishness. You seem to think your opponent has some moral
> obligation to help you win your next round.

Not at all. I said that not resigning against very strong players would
cause the strong players not to want to play with that person, and it does.

Ask yourself this: if Kasparov were your opponent, he was clearly winning,
and it was obvious you could make him stay an hour when perhaps he'd rather
catch up with long-lost friends or distribute political propaganda or
whatever, wouldn't he be more likely to appreciate it if you did not do
that?

Obviously, you could do it, but it's considered very bad ettiquette to do so
to a higher-rated player.

I am in that situation a lot more than a 1400 is. In some positions, not
resigning is like asking them that they know how to tie their shoes, and
requiring them to take at least an hour to demonstrate it.





      
Date: 05 Jan 2006 01:37:39
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
You are not very bright, are you?

Let me give you a piece of advice that probably has never occured to you
because your head is in the clouds: Instead of playing lower rated players
and feeling that your life is being wasted, stop playing lower rated
players. If you don't have time to play chess, then don't play chess. If
you would rather be doing something more important than playing a game that
you have started, resign and go do it. It's amazing that you can't figure
these things out yourself.




"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> And your point elsewhere about how you have a game next round and need to
>> rest is more snobbishness. You seem to think your opponent has some
>> moral obligation to help you win your next round.
>
> Not at all. I said that not resigning against very strong players would
> cause the strong players not to want to play with that person, and it
> does.
>
> Ask yourself this: if Kasparov were your opponent, he was clearly winning,
> and it was obvious you could make him stay an hour when perhaps he'd
> rather catch up with long-lost friends or distribute political propaganda
> or whatever, wouldn't he be more likely to appreciate it if you did not do
> that?
>
> Obviously, you could do it, but it's considered very bad ettiquette to do
> so to a higher-rated player.
>
> I am in that situation a lot more than a 1400 is. In some positions, not
> resigning is like asking them that they know how to tie their shoes, and
> requiring them to take at least an hour to demonstrate it.
>
>
>




       
Date: 05 Jan 2006 14:30:32
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
> You are not very bright, are you?

Want to bet me $10,000 I can score 130 or higher on a standard IQ test, or
1200 or higher on the SAT?


Let me give you a piece of advice that probably has never occured to you
> because your head is in the clouds: Instead of playing lower rated
> players and feeling that your life is being wasted, stop playing lower
> rated players.

We were talking about tournaments where this is not an option.

>If you don't have time to play chess, then don't play chess. If you would
>rather be doing something more important than playing a game that you have
>started, resign and go do it. It's amazing that you can't figure these
>things out yourself.

We were talking about tournaments.





   
Date: 02 Jan 2006 02:30:57
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
In article <[email protected] >,
"Jimbo" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
> >> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
> >> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.
> >
> > If you want much stronger players never to play with you or teach you
> > outside of your games together, you're doing it perfectly.
>
> Who wants to learn from snobs? There are plenty of non-snobs who are
> friendly and willing to interact with lower rated players.

I think you missed the main point.

I play plenty of games against lower-rated players, and I like to
postmortem. But if somebody drags on a lost game without reason, I'm far
less likely to post-mortem with them.

And I don't think I'm atypical here. I have a limited amount of time for
chess.

If you want a stronger player to donate some time to helping you learn,
it's not wise to waste their time by playing out clearly lost positions
hoping for an extremely unlikely blunder.

That being said, just because a player is stronger than you doesn't mean
you should resign if you're not convinced you're dead.


    
Date: 02 Jan 2006 09:42:09
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?

"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jimbo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Who wants to learn from snobs? There are plenty of non-snobs who are
>> friendly and willing to interact with lower rated players.
>
> I think you missed the main point.
>
> I play plenty of games against lower-rated players, and I like to
> postmortem. But if somebody drags on a lost game without reason, I'm far
> less likely to post-mortem with them.
>
> And I don't think I'm atypical here. I have a limited amount of time for
> chess.

You've got limited time for chess, okay, you've got more important things to
do with your life, but you're just a super guy who has all the time in the
world when it comes time to sitting down with the lower rated guy and
analyzing.

These excuses you guys make are pathetic and transparent. It's just a way
of trying to justify your condescending attitude.




     
Date: 04 Jan 2006 19:06:52
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
In article <[email protected] >,
"Jimbo" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> You've got limited time for chess, okay, you've got more important things to
> do with your life, but you're just a super guy who has all the time in the
> world when it comes time to sitting down with the lower rated guy and
> analyzing.

Huh?

I'm being a snob here?

It's simple, really. Let's say I block out about an hour and a half for
a game. I acheive a won position in about an hour, but my opponent uses
a ton of time, and runs his clock all the way down playing out a
trivially lost position.

Or, he resigns.

In which of those situations do I have time to post-mortem?

So, yes, I have a limited amount of time for chess. But when I have half
an hour or so, eg, not enough time for another game, sure, I'll
post-mortem.

In a tournament, same thing. If my opponent drags the game out, then
probably all I want to do is get some food and relax before the next
round. If I've got an hour, well, then I'm more likely to want to talk
about the game.

As for who's being a snob, I don't think anybody could legitimately call
me a snob. The people I actually play with tend to like me, because I'm
friendly and ... yes ... like to talk about the game afterword.

Most people do. If you don't, then it shouldn't bother you if your
opponent thinks you're a jerk. That's your call. But I've learned a lot
from post-mortems - probably enough to win me more than the trivial
number of points I might have given up in huge blunders by my opponents.

I fail to see what's snobby about any of this.

-Ron


     
Date: 04 Jan 2006 00:17:36
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>>> Who wants to learn from snobs? There are plenty of non-snobs who are
>>> friendly and willing to interact with lower rated players.
>>
>> I think you missed the main point.
>>
>> I play plenty of games against lower-rated players, and I like to
>> postmortem. But if somebody drags on a lost game without reason, I'm far
>> less likely to post-mortem with them.
>>
>> And I don't think I'm atypical here. I have a limited amount of time for
>> chess.
>
> You've got limited time for chess, okay, you've got more important things
> to do with your life, but you're just a super guy who has all the time in
> the world when it comes time to sitting down with the lower rated guy and
> analyzing.
>
> These excuses you guys make are pathetic and transparent. It's just a way
> of trying to justify your condescending attitude.

The attitude is necessary if one wishes to get stronger.

I have far better things to do with my time than teach kindergarten level
chess.





      
Date: 03 Jan 2006 22:37:08
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> >>> Who wants to learn from snobs? There are plenty of non-snobs who are
> >>> friendly and willing to interact with lower rated players.
> >>
> >> I think you missed the main point.
> >>
> >> I play plenty of games against lower-rated players, and I like to
> >> postmortem. But if somebody drags on a lost game without reason, I'm far
> >> less likely to post-mortem with them.
> >>
> >> And I don't think I'm atypical here. I have a limited amount of time for
> >> chess.
> >
> > You've got limited time for chess, okay, you've got more important things
> > to do with your life, but you're just a super guy who has all the time in
> > the world when it comes time to sitting down with the lower rated guy and
> > analyzing.
> >
> > These excuses you guys make are pathetic and transparent. It's just a way
> > of trying to justify your condescending attitude.
>
> The attitude is necessary if one wishes to get stronger.
>
> I have far better things to do with my time than teach kindergarten level
> chess.

"Serious" chess does invite the pursuit of efficiency above almost
everything else... It is an integral part of the "deal", especially
in the post-ELO ratings "chessic" world (almost an organized sport).
I am afraid that friendly, relaxed post mortems of games are part of
the "casual" chess scene even if they take place in a tournament hall!

Regards,

Major Cat



       
Date: 04 Jan 2006 05:49:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>> >> I think you missed the main point.
>> >>
>> >> I play plenty of games against lower-rated players, and I like to
>> >> postmortem. But if somebody drags on a lost game without reason, I'm
>> >> far
>> >> less likely to post-mortem with them.
>> >>
>> >> And I don't think I'm atypical here. I have a limited amount of time
>> >> for
>> >> chess.
>> >
>> > You've got limited time for chess, okay, you've got more important
>> > things
>> > to do with your life, but you're just a super guy who has all the time
>> > in
>> > the world when it comes time to sitting down with the lower rated guy
>> > and
>> > analyzing.
>> >
>> > These excuses you guys make are pathetic and transparent. It's just a
>> > way
>> > of trying to justify your condescending attitude.
>>
>> The attitude is necessary if one wishes to get stronger.
>>
>> I have far better things to do with my time than teach kindergarten level
>> chess.
>
> "Serious" chess does invite the pursuit of efficiency above almost
> everything else... It is an integral part of the "deal", especially
> in the post-ELO ratings "chessic" world (almost an organized sport).
> I am afraid that friendly, relaxed post mortems of games are part of
> the "casual" chess scene even if they take place in a tournament hall!

I should add that I once coached a high school team in my area that a friend
put together, took them from beginners to third place after getting them
midseason and drilling them in openings three hours a day (they won lots of
miniatures but few endgames), so I don't mind teaching.

That's not the same, however, as spending my time at a tournament on a weak
game. A strong player may be competing for a prize and may want to rest up,
especially if he's playing his morning game after being up half the night.
Other strong players may want to play for money in the skittles room to
offset their costs (or add to them).





       
Date: 04 Jan 2006 05:46:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>> >>> Who wants to learn from snobs? There are plenty of non-snobs who are
>> >>> friendly and willing to interact with lower rated players.
>> >>
>> >> I think you missed the main point.
>> >>
>> >> I play plenty of games against lower-rated players, and I like to
>> >> postmortem. But if somebody drags on a lost game without reason, I'm
>> >> far
>> >> less likely to post-mortem with them.
>> >>
>> >> And I don't think I'm atypical here. I have a limited amount of time
>> >> for
>> >> chess.
>> >
>> > You've got limited time for chess, okay, you've got more important
>> > things
>> > to do with your life, but you're just a super guy who has all the time
>> > in
>> > the world when it comes time to sitting down with the lower rated guy
>> > and
>> > analyzing.
>> >
>> > These excuses you guys make are pathetic and transparent. It's just a
>> > way
>> > of trying to justify your condescending attitude.
>>
>> The attitude is necessary if one wishes to get stronger.
>>
>> I have far better things to do with my time than teach kindergarten level
>> chess.
>
> "Serious" chess does invite the pursuit of efficiency above almost
> everything else... It is an integral part of the "deal", especially
> in the post-ELO ratings "chessic" world (almost an organized sport).
> I am afraid that friendly, relaxed post mortems of games are part of
> the "casual" chess scene even if they take place in a tournament hall!

Strong players view players as strong and weak, but also as good and bad.

I've seen 1200s that I could tell were future masters, and 2000s that would
never get there (jury's still out on me).





 
Date: 01 Jan 2006 08:23:40
From:
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Hello Dave and group,

Dave wrote "I suspect that players of Korchnoi's class blunder their
queens sufficiently infrequently that playing on in this kind of
position generates more ill will than rating points."

Ok, I agree.

I only posted that game because I remembered reading Korchnoi being
annoyed because his opponent continued this position and later
blundered (proving his opponent was correct continuing that game).

As I posted anyone can continue a game until He want, ... and if ever
we have a won positon and our opponent continue playing, we must
continue playing acurately and with no confidence.

Antonio



 
Date: 30 Dec 2005 16:04:20
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.
>
> Resigning is an abrupt ending to the game, well before it's
> rightful conclusion - checkmate.
>
> By playing on in lost positions, I often wear our my opponent, and he
> can blunder away his winning advantage, or fall victim to a swindle of
> mine (I have been on the wrong side too). Even if I end up losing, I
> often wind up learning more about endgames, and how to win if my
> opponent refuses to resign, just like me!

I would resign a game when these two conditions seem true:

1) I have no realistic hope of not losing the game.
2) I do not expect to learn anything by continuing the game.

> However, this has made me enemies on the website,
> which I have blocked. Do you think it is worth it?

One has the right to play on with the attitude of 'I hope that my
opponent will have a (non-fatal) heart attack before he or she can
win the game.' And other people have the right to think less
of a player with that attitude.

--Nick



 
Date: 30 Dec 2005 13:15:16
From:
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Richard wrote:
"In my post, I mentioned that GM's resign when they're down a piece,
and lower level players incorrectly follow their example."

But no all GM resign in lost positions. A recent example of GM
practice: Korchnoi had a winning position vs Estrada in Linares open
1998 but Estrada continued in a lost position ... let's see what
happened!!

[Event "Anibal Linares op"]
[Site "Linares"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Korchnoi, Viktor Lvovich"]
[Black "Estrada Nieto, J."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A19"]
[WhiteElo "2610"]
[BlackElo "2420"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "1998.01.20"]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. e4 c5 4. e5 Ng8 5. Nf3 d6 6. exd6 Bxd6 7. d4
cxd4 8.Nxd4 a6 9. Be3 Nf6 10. Be2 O-O 11. Qd2 Bb4 12. a3 Ne4 13. Qc2
Qa5 14. O-O Nxc3 15. Nb3 Nxe2+ 16. Qxe2 Qa4 17. axb4 Qxb3 18. Bc5 Nd7
19. Ra3 Nxc5 20. Rxb3 Nxb3 21. Qd3 e5 22. Qxb3 Be6 23. Qc3 Rfd8 24. b3
Rd4 25. Qe3 Rad8 26. Qxe5 b5 27. c5 Bxb3 28. c6 Rd2 29. c7 Rc8 30. Qe3
Rc2 31. Qxb3 R8xc7 32. Rd1 Rc8 33. Rd8+ Rxd8 34. Qxc2 g6 35. h4 h5 36.
Qb2 Rd6 37. f3 Re6 38. g4 Rc6 39. Kf2 Rc4 40. gxh5 Rxh4 41. hxg6 Rh2+
0-1

AT



  
Date: 31 Dec 2005 11:20:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>> In my post, I mentioned that GM's resign when they're down a piece,
>> and lower level players incorrectly follow their example.
>
> But no all GM resign in lost positions. A recent example of GM
> practice: Korchnoi had a winning position vs Estrada in Linares open
> 1998 but Estrada continued in a lost position ... [and Estrada won]

I suspect that players of Korchnoi's class blunder their queens
sufficiently infrequently that playing on in this kind of position
generates more ill will than rating points.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Transparent Hungry Sword (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a razor-sharp blade but it'll eat
you and you can see right through it!


 
Date: 30 Dec 2005 12:25:34
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?

Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Even outside of tournament settings or rated games (in tournaments or
> > on the internet), why would you not play on in an even position to see
> > how it ends?
>
> The point is that at a certain point, you already know how it's going to
> end.
>
> And it's not worth the time on the very rare occurrence when a player
> will bungle it. How many times do you want to play out drawn positions
> to win one of them? At a certain point, it becomes a waste of time.
>
> If you, or your opponents, aren't strong enough to hold the draw with
> regularity then you shouldn't take it. But that's not the situation for
> most tournament players.
>
> -Ron

"Most tournament players"? I have to disagree. Most grandmasters?
Probably. Most masters? Maybe. Most tournament players? No way.

I'm not talking about the really obvious draws in the endgame. For
instance, in one game in my last tournament, we each ended up with only
2 pawns left. Both sets of pawns were passed, connected, and supporting
each other, and both kings were blockading the enemy pawns. Obviously,
there were no moves left but blunders or the shuffling of kings back
and forth in front of the pawns. That's a forced draw. And going back
to the original topic, I actually had the worse position most of that
game, so I was pretty happy I hadn't resigned when some people would
have.

I'm talking about the agreed draws in even positions where there's
still enough material for there to be some play left. For instance, in
that same last tournament, I saw a couple of 1500-1600 level players
agree to a draw when they each had 2 rooks, a minor piece, and 6 pawns
left on the board. The position was quiet enough that neither one had
an obvious attack or obvious positional advantage. Although when I say
obvious, I'm talking about obvious to me and my 1400 rating, so maybe I
missed something, but that would mean that they did, too. I saw another
game in the open section of the same tournament that was similarly
"drawish", in that it was a quiet, materially even position. The
players were an IM and a guy rated about 2100. I didn't stay to watch
how it went, but when I checked the scoreboard after the round, I
noticed that the IM won.

That's my point. Most players simply aren't good enough to play perfect
chess. That's why I don't resign until it's REALLY hopeless, and it's
why I don't believe in "agreed" draws, only forced draws.

--Richard



  
Date: 30 Dec 2005 22:23:54
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> That's my point. Most players simply aren't good enough to play perfect
> chess. That's why I don't resign until it's REALLY hopeless, and it's
> why I don't believe in "agreed" draws, only forced draws.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from.

But I generally don't take those draws. Back when I played (briefly) in
tournaments, I never did, and now when I'm online I usually don't. (I
did once, recently, when an opponent of mine offered a draw in a
position where I felt he had a slight advantage. It was very early, but
he decided he needed to leave. Since I was worse, it seemed like the
reasonable - and polite - thing to do even if I could have fought back,
and who knows what would have happened.)

I don't think the draws you're describing are very common. They may be,
but they weren't in my experience. I wouldn't accept or offer a draw in
those circumstances, barring something else going on (tournament
position, tiredness, etc)

On the contrary, I've seen lots of players playing out clear theoretical
draws because they knew one or two more tricks they could throw in.

-Ron


 
Date: 30 Dec 2005 11:42:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?

Major Cat wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Even outside of tournament settings or rated games (in tournaments or
> > on the internet), why would you not play on in an even position to see
> > how it ends? Again, even in a casual "street" game of basketball,
> > you'll never see players call it quits just because the score is even.
> > Playing to win is part of the game.
>
> Yes, but only _part_ of it as you said. Context can be important.
> For example, a game that is being played in a parlor cultural
> setting may be abandoned because dinner may be about to be served.
> Or, a game that is being played in a cafe cultural setting may be
> set aside (even permanently) because the political discussion
> around an adjacent table may be too hard to resist joining full
> bore... 8>)
>

Well, the same can be said for any competitive activity. I recall many
games of basketball, kickball, soccer (football), or other sports when
I was in school that were ended because the time for recess or gym
class was at an end, regardless of the score of the game at the time.
Similarly, a few weeks ago, I had to abandon a chess game at a coffee
shop, because the shop was closing for the evening and the staff needed
us to leave. We didn't call it a draw, though. We called it a shame
that we wouldn't get the chance to continue and see how it would turn
out. :) If it was someone I play against regularly, we probably would
have written down the position and continued at a later time.

> > My point is that anyone who shows up to play when they're tired or sick
> > should expect the consequences. If they don't want to risk losing, they
> > shouldn't play that day.
>
> I am not that knowledgeable about how things work when it
> comes to not playing a rated game in an event that one has
> already registered for. If there is no penalty for not play-
> ing, then, yes, I would agree with you.
>

The penalty for taking a bye is usually the same as the penalty for a
loss: 0 points for the round. Actually, many tournaments allow a half
point for a pre-scheduled bye, usually limited to one per tournament.
Unfortunately, the entry fee isn't descreased to reflect the number of
games actually played.

--Richard



 
Date: 30 Dec 2005 12:43:59
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Even outside of tournament settings or rated games (in tournaments or
> on the internet), why would you not play on in an even position to see
> how it ends? Again, even in a casual "street" game of basketball,
> you'll never see players call it quits just because the score is even.
> Playing to win is part of the game.

Yes, but only _part_ of it as you said. Context can be important.
For example, a game that is being played in a parlor cultural
setting may be abandoned because dinner may be about to be served.
Or, a game that is being played in a cafe cultural setting may be
set aside (even permanently) because the political discussion
around an adjacent table may be too hard to resist joining full
bore... 8 >)

>
> There's a chess club that meets on Friday evenings in my area for one
> rated game per week. I rarely show up, partly because I can't always
> get out of work early enough, and partly because I know I won't be able
> to play my best if I show up tired at the end of a long work week.
> Losing because I'm too tired to play well really annoys me. I also know
> a senior citizen who occasionally shows up for 5 round weekend
> tournaments and requests 2 byes in advance, because he knows that he no
> longer has the stamina to play that many long games in a weekend.
>
> My point is that anyone who shows up to play when they're tired or sick
> should expect the consequences. If they don't want to risk losing, they
> shouldn't play that day.

I am not that knowledgeable about how things work when it
comes to not playing a rated game in an event that one has
already registered for. If there is no penalty for not play-
ing, then, yes, I would agree with you.

>
> --Richard

Regards,

Major Cat



 
Date: 30 Dec 2005 08:34:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?

Major Cat wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > In fact, I don't understand why agreed draws are even a part of the
> > game. Forced draws are necessary. After all, if the position repeats
> > endlessly, or there's a stalemate, or there's not even material to
> > mate, that's a draw. But why are agreed draws even an option? In
> > sports, you never see two teams agree to a tie just because they're
> > tied at
> > halftime, so why does chess have a procedure for that built into the
> > rules? Isn't this supposed to be a competitive activity?
>
> Only if you view "chess" as an organized sport. Of course, if a chess
> enthusiast has an ELO-type of rating and, more importantly, he _does_
> care about it, he _is_ then participating in organized sport activities
> whether he likes it or not...
>

Even outside of tournament settings or rated games (in tournaments or
on the internet), why would you not play on in an even position to see
how it ends? Again, even in a casual "street" game of basketball,
you'll never see players call it quits just because the score is even.
Playing to win is part of the game.

> > And yes, I
> > understand that the origins of this are from when the game was
> > considered more of an intellectual exercise for gentlemen than a
> > competition, but that really doesn't apply any more in the modern
> > world.
>
> As usual, the numbers have it in the "modern world". However, it
> may be a bit of a stretch to assume that all lurkers/posters have
> embraced "chess" as an organized sport without any reservations...
> Not all chess games being played "out there" conform to the culture
> of FIDE or the various national and regional chess governing bodies!
>
> >
> > I've gotten in the habit of never offering draws,
>
> Assuming rated play, what if a player is tired or sick and does not
> want to run the risk of losing the game while trying to win it under
> unfavorable "fighting" conditions? My comment/question is a practical
> one _given_ present day realities in rated competition. I am _not_
> arguing for or against the present organized sport rules regarding
> agreed upon draws... 8>)
>

There's a chess club that meets on Friday evenings in my area for one
rated game per week. I rarely show up, partly because I can't always
get out of work early enough, and partly because I know I won't be able
to play my best if I show up tired at the end of a long work week.
Losing because I'm too tired to play well really annoys me. I also know
a senior citizen who occasionally shows up for 5 round weekend
tournaments and requests 2 byes in advance, because he knows that he no
longer has the stamina to play that many long games in a weekend.

My point is that anyone who shows up to play when they're tired or sick
should expect the consequences. If they don't want to risk losing, they
shouldn't play that day.

--Richard



  
Date: 30 Dec 2005 20:14:01
From: N. Silver
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Richard (Blueghost) wrote:

> Even outside of tournament settings or rated games
> (in tournaments or on the internet), why would you
> not play on in an even position to see how it ends?
> Again, even in a casual "street" game of basketball,
> you'll never see players call it quits just because the
> score is even. Playing to win is part of the game.

Chess is not a sport. Board and card games are not
sports but competitions. Priily, sports are physical
activities and only secondarily mental activities. As the
level of competition increases, mental components take
on more importance. They are the factors that separate
athletes and teams.

In the context of board games, there are many reasons
to pursue a draw. It may win a tournament; a player
may not want to take a risk, etc.




   
Date: 30 Dec 2005 21:30:39
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
N. Silver <[email protected] > wrote:
> In the context of board games, there are many reasons to pursue a
> draw. It may win a tournament; a player may not want to take a risk,
> etc.

Likewise in other sports. It's not uncommon for the last ten or fifteen
minutes of a soccer game to be really, really boring because either both
teams are happy with the equal score or one team is 1-0 up and doesn't
want to take any risks so just hogs the ball. Both of these tactics
effectively end the game before the full duration.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Surprise Transparent Hi-Fi (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a music system but you can
see right through it and not like
you'd expect!


  
Date: 30 Dec 2005 18:21:35
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Even outside of tournament settings or rated games (in tournaments or
> on the internet), why would you not play on in an even position to see
> how it ends?

The point is that at a certain point, you already know how it's going to
end.

And it's not worth the time on the very rare occurrence when a player
will bungle it. How many times do you want to play out drawn positions
to win one of them? At a certain point, it becomes a waste of time.

If you, or your opponents, aren't strong enough to hold the draw with
regularity then you shouldn't take it. But that's not the situation for
most tournament players.

-Ron


 
Date: 30 Dec 2005 13:56:55
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
On 29 Dec 2005 06:33:56 -0800, "J.L.W.S. The Special One"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Resigning is an abrupt ending to the game, well before it's rightful
>conclusion - checkmate.
>
>By playing on in lost positions, I often wear our my opponent, and he
>can blunder away his winning advantage, or fall victim to a swindle of
>mine (I have been on the wrong side too). Even if I end up losing, I
>often wind up learning more about endgames, and how to win if my
>opponent refuses to resign, just like me!

I hate people who play until mate with a passion, but if you think you
gain something out of it then you can do it. Just be aware that as
your skills increase those stalemates and swindles will become rare as
hen's teeth. At that moment it becomes a decision of whether to accept
your position as totally and utterly lost when it objectively is, or
alternatively to keep suffering while not really gaining anything
(contrary to what some people seem to think, dodging a queen with a
lone king does not teach you anything about chess).


 
Date: 29 Dec 2005 18:51:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Notes below, between the quotes...

J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
> In that game, despite losing material, I was well developed, and I
> spotted the oppurtunity to attack his King with cheap tactics. I had no
> idea that they would work, but I gave them a try - and ended up
> winning.
>

And this is exactly why it was worth trying the attack. As I said, give
your opponent every possible opportunity to blunder.


> Your suggestions are, that I resign if I am materially down (by at
> least a major piece) with no compensation for the deficit (in that
> game, I had compensation) or if both of us can clearly see that my
> opponent has a forced win (if I can't see it, I'd want to learn it - if
> my opponent can't see it, I'm not lost yet).
>

I don't necessarily agree with resigning if you're down a major piece
with no compensation. Sometimes, even if your position is just as awful
as the material deficit, you can create an attacking position by being
stubborn against an opponent who doesn't know how to handle it. This is
especially true if the player with the extra material gets into time
trouble. If he defends well when you try to create an attack, then it's
probably a lost cause, though. I usually play on for at least 3 or 4
more moves in these types of situations, just to see if my opponent
will defend well, or if he'll let me get away with something.

> I agree that GMs often resign prematurely, setting a bad example for
> weaker players.
>

Now this part, I disagree with. In my post, I mentioned that GM's
resign when they're down a piece, and lower level players incorrectly
follow their example. I never said the resignation was premature at the
GM level.

When the game is between two GM's, and one player resigns because
they're down a piece, we mere mortals can safely assume that they both
already know how to force the win from that situation. They wouldn't be
GM's if they didn't. Thus, the resignation was the correct thing to do,
even by your standards listed above ("both of us can clearly see that
my opponent has a forced win").

Now hand the exact same position on the board to a pair of 1500
players, and it's still anyone's game. The one with the extra material
has a distinct advantage, but that's no guarantee that they won't
blunder it away, especially if the losing player attacks aggressively.
That's why it's wrong for us patzers to follow grandmaster examples
when it comes to deciding if it's time to resign or draw.

Just my two pawns worth...

--Richard



 
Date: 29 Dec 2005 16:42:58
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Thanks for all the replies. In-depth analysis of the game would be most
appreciated.

In that game, despite losing material, I was well developed, and I
spotted the oppurtunity to attack his King with cheap tactics. I had no
idea that they would work, but I gave them a try - and ended up
winning.

Your suggestions are, that I resign if I am materially down (by at
least a major piece) with no compensation for the deficit (in that
game, I had compensation) or if both of us can clearly see that my
opponent has a forced win (if I can't see it, I'd want to learn it - if
my opponent can't see it, I'm not lost yet).

I agree that GMs often resign prematurely, setting a bad example for
weaker players.

I have saved other positions - notably endgames where my opponent has a
Rook and Pawn for my Bishop (in one game I made my opponent give up his
Rook for my pawn, and did likewise with my Bishop, ending in a won Pawn
endgame; in another dogged defence earned me half a point) - by not
resigning. There have also been cases of opponents timeouting or
resigning in won positions, practically giving me free points. However,
these cases have become less frequent as I play 1600 players.



 
Date: 29 Dec 2005 23:11:27
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
En/na J.L.W.S. The Special One ha escrit:
> (...)
> By playing on in lost positions, I often wear our my opponent, and he
> can blunder away his winning advantage, or fall victim to a swindle of
> mine (I have been on the wrong side too). Even if I end up losing, I
> often wind up learning more about endgames, and how to win if my
> opponent refuses to resign, just like me!
>
> However, this has made me enemies on the website, which I have blocked.
> Do you think it is worth it? To illustrate my point, here's one of my
> favourite games ever played on that website
> (http://chesscolony.com/?rfr=hildanknight), in which I blunder away
> material but win by attacking his King.
>
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bd6 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 0-0 a6 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4 Nge7 7 Nc3 Nxd4 8
> Qxd4 0-0 9 Bg5 Qe8 10 f4 b6 11 Rae1?? Bc5 12 Ne2 Bxd4+ 13 Nxd4 a5 14 f5
> Bb7 15 f6 gxf6 16 Bxf6 Ng6 17 Nf5 h5 18 Rf3 Kh7 19 Rh3 Nf4?? 20 Rh4!
> Nxg2?? 21 Rxh5+ Kg6 22 Rh6# or 21...Kg8 22 Rh8#.

Hello JLWS,

A game is ended only after mate or draw (by "3 repetition", stalemate
or "50 moves rule"). Until that moment you can continue playing. People
who do not like this can play another games.

To continue a game can be a waste of time in some cases, but if you
think there is something interesting to play you must try it.
Continue playing in those cases have sense and to analize those game
continuations is a good way to improve.

For example, you can resign that game after 11...Bc5 but continuing it
you learned some interesting things. My point is that analising that
game continuation you can learn many other things (for example, the move
12.Qxc5!! bxc5 13.Nd5 which is a nice tactical shot who forces black to
play acurately ... or other possible black moves during the game to try
to consolidate the advantage with no risk)

AT



 
Date: 29 Dec 2005 13:47:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
A rule of thumb I remember hearing is to never resign until you know
for sure how you would win if the roles were reversed. In other words,
if you see how they can force the win, then you're no longer going to
learn anything by making them actually do so. If you don't see it, then
make them prove that they do, and treat it as a learning opportunity,
because you'll get to study their technique. And if they whine about it
afterwards, explain that this is exactly why you do it - you want to
learn from seeing their brilliant play! :)

Generally, I believe in giving my opponent every possible opportunity
to blunder. Once it's down to the point of being absolutely hopeless,
I'll resign. But if there's even the slightest bit of play left, I'll
keep trying.

I do think that most people resign too early, especially at low levels.
They study master games and see the masters resigning when they're down
a piece. But at lower levels, you should make your opponent prove that
they know how to force the win with their extra piece. Often, low level
players will blunder the extra material right back, or walk into
something even worse.

While we're on the subject, I also think that there are way too many
draws. Many games at the class level are agreed draws just because it's
materially even going into the late middle game or endgame phase, and
the players agree to a draw just because they don't know how to play
the endgame. In most of those games, I think if they played out the
endgame, someone would win, either because they had a positional
advantage entering the endgame or just because they're better at
endgame play than their opponent.

In fact, I don't understand why agreed draws are even a part of the
game. Forced draws are necessary. After all, if the position repeats
endlessly, or there's a stalemate, or there's not even material to
mate, that's a draw. But why are agreed draws even an option? In
sports, you never see two teams agree to a tie just because they're
tied at
halftime, so why does chess have a procedure for that built into the
rules? Isn't this supposed to be a competitive activity? And yes, I
understand that the origins of this are from when the game was
considered more of an intellectual exercise for gentlemen than a
competition, but that really doesn't apply any more in the modern
world.

I've gotten in the habit of never offering draws, and never accepting
draw offers unless I see that I'll definitely lose if I don't. It
doesn't happen often, but I have had opponents offer me a draw when
they had a won game and didn't realize it.

--Richard



  
Date: 30 Dec 2005 14:46:33
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> In fact, I don't understand why agreed draws are even a part of the
> game.

Because you can't stop them. The players can always go for a draw by
repetition if necessary.


> In sports, you never see two teams agree to a tie just because they're
> tied at halftime, so why does chess have a procedure for that built into
> the rules?

In sports, you never see two guys sitting on opposite sides of a table
moving little pieces of wood or plastic around a little chequered board
while writing cryptic little notes on a piece of paper so why does chess
have a procedure for that built into the rules?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Natural Poetic Smokes (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pack of cigarettes but it's in verse
and completely natural!


  
Date: 30 Dec 2005 07:45:24
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
[email protected] wrote:
>
> In fact, I don't understand why agreed draws are even a part of the
> game. Forced draws are necessary. After all, if the position repeats
> endlessly, or there's a stalemate, or there's not even material to
> mate, that's a draw. But why are agreed draws even an option? In
> sports, you never see two teams agree to a tie just because they're
> tied at
> halftime, so why does chess have a procedure for that built into the
> rules? Isn't this supposed to be a competitive activity?

Only if you view "chess" as an organized sport. Of course, if a chess
enthusiast has an ELO-type of rating and, more importantly, he _does_
care about it, he _is_ then participating in organized sport activities
whether he likes it or not...

> And yes, I
> understand that the origins of this are from when the game was
> considered more of an intellectual exercise for gentlemen than a
> competition, but that really doesn't apply any more in the modern
> world.

As usual, the numbers have it in the "modern world". However, it
may be a bit of a stretch to assume that all lurkers/posters have
embraced "chess" as an organized sport without any reservations...
Not all chess games being played "out there" conform to the culture
of FIDE or the various national and regional chess governing bodies!

>
> I've gotten in the habit of never offering draws,

Assuming rated play, what if a player is tired or sick and does not
want to run the risk of losing the game while trying to win it under
unfavorable "fighting" conditions? My comment/question is a practical
one _given_ present day realities in rated competition. I am _not_
arguing for or against the present organized sport rules regarding
agreed upon draws... 8 >)

> and never accepting
> draw offers unless I see that I'll definitely lose if I don't. It
> doesn't happen often, but I have had opponents offer me a draw when
> they had a won game and didn't realize it.
>
> --Richard

Regards,

Major Cat



  
Date: 30 Dec 2005 03:15:55
From:
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
yes , dont give in! play it out! a draw is a draw,but a loss is forever!



  
Date: 29 Dec 2005 22:33:29
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> A rule of thumb I remember hearing is to never resign until you know
> for sure how you would win if the roles were reversed. In other words,
> if you see how they can force the win, then you're no longer going to
> learn anything by making them actually do so.

I would go one step further than this:

Not only should I know how to win from the other side, but it should be
obvious that they know how to force the win.

For example, I've played on in something like this position:

4K3/2k1P3/8/8/8/8/5r2/6R1 w - - 0 1

but would resign after 1.Rc1+ Kb7 2.Rc4

There's no way somebody plays 2.Rc4 here unless they know the win. But
if they play something like 2. Kd8 I'll keep playing.

Unfortunately, I don't run into too many people who don't know this
these days.

-Ron


   
Date: 01 Jan 2006 19:58:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>> A rule of thumb I remember hearing is to never resign until you know
>> for sure how you would win if the roles were reversed. In other words,
>> if you see how they can force the win, then you're no longer going to
>> learn anything by making them actually do so.
>
> I would go one step further than this:
>
> Not only should I know how to win from the other side, but it should be
> obvious that they know how to force the win.

I've even pulled out games where THIS was true.





    
Date: 02 Jan 2006 02:28:07
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Not only should I know how to win from the other side, but it should be
> > obvious that they know how to force the win.
>
> I've even pulled out games where THIS was true.

Very few of the reasons for resigning apply in a 1 minute game. Extreme
time trouble is almost always a reason to play on in a worse position.


     
Date: 03 Jan 2006 01:25:50
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>> > Not only should I know how to win from the other side, but it should be
>> > obvious that they know how to force the win.
>>
>> I've even pulled out games where THIS was true.
>
> Very few of the reasons for resigning apply in a 1 minute game.

I didn't say it was one-minute chess.

I used to play retard chess and 30-minute chess, and the blunders people
make in winning positions can be amazing sometimes.

"no one ever won a game by resigning."





   
Date: 31 Dec 2005 11:22:26
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A rule of thumb I remember hearing is to never resign until you know
>> for sure how you would win if the roles were reversed. In other words,
>> if you see how they can force the win, then you're no longer going to
>> learn anything by making them actually do so.
>
> I would go one step further than this:
>
> Not only should I know how to win from the other side, but it should be
> obvious that they know how to force the win.

One should possibly go even further than this.

Not only should one know how to win from the other side but it should be
obvious that the opponent knows how to force the win in the time
available.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Evil Boss (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a middle manager but it's genuinely
evil and it'll turn your stomach!


    
Date: 31 Dec 2005 11:46:26
From: Amarande
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
David Richerby wrote:
> One should possibly go even further than this.
>
> Not only should one know how to win from the other side but it should be
> obvious that the opponent knows how to force the win in the time
> available.

Indeed, this is rather appropriate.

It is especially true in zero-increment blitz, where even having a few
seconds over your opponent can lead to you winning almost regardless of
what happens. An unfortunate case where this happened to me -

[Event "ICC 5 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2005.11.24"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Aurorian"]
[Black "guy1000"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White forfeits on time"]
[WhiteElo "1352"]
[BlackElo "1398"]
[Opening "Sicilian: Grand Prix attack"]
[ECO "B21"]
[NIC "VO.07"]
[Time "16:24:04"]
[TimeControl "300+0"]

1. f4 c5 2. e4 Nc6 3. Nf3 g6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Bg7 6. Be3 e6 7. Nb5 Bf8
8. e5 a6 9. Nd6+ Bxd6 10. exd6 b5 11. Be2 Bb7 12. O-O Rc8 13. Bf3 Qf6
14. Nc3 h5 15. f5 gxf5 16. Qd2 Nh6 17. Bg5 Qg6 18. Rae1 Ng4 19. Bxg4
hxg4 20. Nd5 Kf8 21. Be7+ Kg8 22. Nf6+ Kg7 23. Qc3 e5 24. Rxe5 Nxe5 25.
Qxe5 Kh6 26. Rxf5 Kg7 27. Ne8+ Kg8 28. Rg5 Rxe8 29. Rxg6+ fxg6 30. Qf6
Rh6 31. Qg5 Kh7 32. Qf6 Rg8 33. Qf7+ Rg7 34. Qe8 Bc6 35. Qf8 g5 36. Qf5+
Rhg6 37. Qf8 b4 38. Bf6 b3 39. Bxg7 Rxg7 40. Qf5+ Kh6 41. Qf6+ Rg6 42.
Qf8+ Rg7 43. Qf6+ Kh7 44. Qf5+ Kh8 45. Qf8+ Kh7 {White forfeits on time} 0-1

I clearly don't see it appropriate for Black to -resign- here, as the
win does still need to be demonstrated, and as the result shows, White
did not have the time to do it.

What IS unsportsmanlike, IMO, is continually refusing draw offers when a
player is short on time (and IMO 'insufficient losing chances' - an FIDE
criteria for an arbitrated draw were this OTB - does apply for White
here - with unlimited time White should be winning this endgame fairly
easily ... and in any case the perpetual being attempted here is
airtight), basically laughing in their face as they use up the little
time remaining to them like someone trapped in a sealed room using up
their oxygen by screaming. This is a case where Black won the game only
because White had insufficient time to physically make the moves needed
to make an automatic (repetition or 50 move) draw, even though the means
to draw is clear, and with more time even a win is mostly assured.

Especially on chess servers with 'minmovetime' (which I believe both
FICS and ICC have now) - which means that at least a certain amount of
time is charged against you per move no matter how fast you move, even
if you premove, this dastardly conduct cannot be condoned.


 
Date: 29 Dec 2005 20:40:09
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
In article <[email protected] >,
"J.L.W.S. The Special One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bd6 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 0-0 a6 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4 Nge7 7 Nc3 Nxd4 8
> Qxd4 0-0 9 Bg5 Qe8 10 f4 b6 11 Rae1?? Bc5 12 Ne2 Bxd4+ 13 Nxd4 a5 14 f5
> Bb7 15 f6 gxf6 16 Bxf6 Ng6 17 Nf5 h5 18 Rf3 Kh7 19 Rh3 Nf4?? 20 Rh4!
> Nxg2?? 21 Rxh5+ Kg6 22 Rh6# or 21...Kg8 22 Rh8#.

When you - and your opponents - are still playing this poorly, I think
you're often perfectly justified in playing on.

The fact is that you - correctly - saw some potential for an attack on
the enemy king, and your opponent lacked the skill to defend correctly.
I think a lot of people would play on if they saw that they still had
some sort of attack - even down a Q for a B.

However, as you get even a little bit better, you're going to discover
that being down a Q for a B is pretty pointless. Your opponent had a
lot of opportunities to stifle your attack, here, and missed them. So
I'm not advocating "never resigning."

At a certain point, your time is better spent playing a new game. Yes,
every so often you'll miss an occasional blunder, but since people tend
to blunder when under pressure, those will become rarer and rarer.

But somebody who defends as poorly as this guy here did isn't entitled
to get mad at you for not resigning.

My personal feeling is that you should resign when you're down a
significant amount of material and don't see how you'd generate any
compensating threats. But so long as you can envision ways to put
pressure on your opponent which requires some precision on his part,
play on.

But generally you'll find that, when you're down a piece or more, that a
few precise moves by your opponent will eliminate any hope of winning
that doesn't involve a completely unforced major blunder. In
correspondence chess, I simply don't think you're going to get enough of
those to be worth your while.

In this game, moves like 13. ... h6, 14. ... Ba6 (why play ...a5 if the
bishop's going to end up on b7?) 16. ... Nc6 (complex, but black gives
back a lot of material to stifle your initiative) 18. ... d5!, 20 ... d5
give black a strong position and a strong expectation of winning the
full point.

But after this game, you're opponent should congratulate you on your
attack, not whine that you should have resigned. If somebody gets mad
at you after a game like this, just simply answer, "I felt I had
reasonable chances to win the game through a direct attack on your
king." Because, after all, you did.

But, as you keep improving, you'll find that being a Q for B down
becomes hopeless quicker and quicker. When it does so, you should
probably resign.

-Ron


 
Date: 29 Dec 2005 09:27:22
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
>Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
>Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
>correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.


good for you :) I try to do the same thing. Who cares what others
think
it has helped your game so continue doing it.

j.lohner
icc 'Inconnux'



 
Date: 29 Dec 2005 09:54:24
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Not resigning - worth it?
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
>
> Since I resolved never to resign a chess game (and learned the
> Imbalances theory of Jeremy Silman), my rating on an online
> correspondence chess site has improved from 1300s to 1600s.
>
> Resigning is an abrupt ending to the game, well before it's rightful
> conclusion - checkmate.
>
> By playing on in lost positions, I often wear our my opponent, and he
> can blunder away his winning advantage, or fall victim to a swindle of
> mine (I have been on the wrong side too). Even if I end up losing, I
> often wind up learning more about endgames, and how to win if my
> opponent refuses to resign, just like me!
>
> However, this has made me enemies on the website, which I have blocked.
> Do you think it is worth it?

Given the context, that is, the _impersonal_
nature of the Internet, I would say yes,
especially if your rating is important to
you. If you are particularly thick-skinned,
you could also get away with this in a chess
club despite the important fact that, there,
OTB play is face to face. Just do not try
this in a cafe... 8 >)

> To illustrate my point, here's one of my
> favourite games ever played on that website
> (http://chesscolony.com/?rfr=hildanknight), in which I blunder away
> material but win by attacking his King.
>
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Bd6 3 Bc4 Nc6 4 0-0 a6 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4 Nge7 7 Nc3 Nxd4 8
> Qxd4 0-0 9 Bg5 Qe8 10 f4 b6 11 Rae1?? Bc5 12 Ne2 Bxd4+ 13 Nxd4 a5 14 f5
> Bb7 15 f6 gxf6 16 Bxf6 Ng6 17 Nf5 h5 18 Rf3 Kh7 19 Rh3 Nf4?? 20 Rh4!
> Nxg2?? 21 Rxh5+ Kg6 22 Rh6# or 21...Kg8 22 Rh8#.