At what stage do we resign?

[Mathsteach2]

I do not want to belittle the game of chess! However, my modus operandi is that even if I am only a pawn up, I already feel that I am on a winner! A piece up, then I expect my opponent to resign! If I am a piece down, I resign, unless my opponent is known by me to be very weak and then I will play hoping to get my piece back.

I am only a novice, where am I going wrong?!!

I notice the challenges in the online chess games are all, according to this philosophy, already lost!! (Some of them are even a queen down!)

[Dame]

Hmmm... I'd like to see comments from experienced chess players here

[Charlie92]

Hello Mathsteach2! Yes, not good to belittle chess--it's a globally popular game. A pawn up in the endgame is a winner, especially if only minor pieces are at play; in the opening or middlegame, it's only a slight advantage. It's a little easier with a piece up, especially as the game progresses and you maintain that advantage. But on resigning--it's based more on the position than material advantage, although material advantage helps a lot.

Beginners usually play to checkmate--nothing wrong with that--even with overwhelming odds. That attitude is best for learning the endgame (how can one learn if your opponent resigns or you resign; best to learn from a loss than a win).

[Mathsteach2]

I just lost my first on-line game! My early aggression was a disaster, and I felt forced to exchange a knight for a rook and a pawn. I nearly resigned then, but thought could I make the game last for thirty moves?! I succeeded on that, but I think I was let off the hook for a while. Thanks for the game, the man with the golden_g.

[AVEMURI57]

Resignation should occur when you feel that you are truly in a lost scenario. Often times, amateur players view grandmasters who resign with no concievable mating threat and think that its "stylish" to resign early. Keep in mind, that when a GM resigns, its because they truly know that they are going to lose. In fact, the most important skill a chess player can learn is to know when they lost. With that being said, I think you and charlie92 should read up on some endgame theory. When you are up a pawn,you have to be extra careful as your opponent can force a draw. In fact, if your opponent knows what he's doing and you don't, the game can almost be a guaranteed draw. Furthermore, even if one is down a minor piece, draw is still an option as well. Therefore, I suggest you learn some more theory and get more experienced before you think of resigning so early.

[Dame]

AVEMURI57, welcome to the forum and thanks for the info

[Fallen Angel]

Let me put it this way. Chess is more than a game of numbers. I am sure that you have heard the saying which more or less states that the whole of a thing is worth more than the some of its parts. Being up material is no sure win.

The value of pieces and pawns are only rough aproximations. There are so many cases in chess where the balance of force is desturbed by a particular combination of pieces in a given cicumstance. If you should study endgame then you will see many such cases. For example in the simplest of cases two pawns are preferable to a knight in the ending and yet we know that the knight is better than two pawns. So if you lose your knight for two pawns you resign? Not a good idea. You might make it all the way to the ending, swop off most of your opponents pawns and get a draw.

Also you have to keep in mind the tactical side of chess. Especialy at novice level material levels can change in the blink of an eye. Look at master games and you will see how many grandmasters and even worldchampions have been broken by a simple tactic. How much easier at lower levels? This is especially true in open positions as well as late middle and early endgame. In fact in an open position I would tell you to not count material as the most important factor but rather piece activity.

In addition the great Capablanca himself said that the initiative is the only factor that leads to a win since the king must be forced to where he can be mated. White starts with the initiative and he said that white should only relinguish it for a material or positional advantage. Then he stated about the material advantage that once white gave up the initiative for material he must accept the fact that black now has the initiative and that he should be prepared to defend the material advantage and later regain the initiative. If the great capablanca made no light matter of the black initiative once white has a material advantage then I am sure we lesser players can learn a lesson here. And here I am talking about both the player with the material advantage and the player with the initiative. In fact in many of Capablanca's games he gave back the material in order to regain the initiative.

And how many people in the history of chess has given their opponents piece or even rook odds. And they played for money. I can be wrong but I think Anderson was one of them. True the quality of opposition was low but do you know the skill level of each and every one of your opponents?

Also keep in mind a particular salient feature of a position. You might be up a pawn or even a piece but what if your opponent can force a situation in which he threatens promotion or where he exposes your king?

The only exeption to these points is when you play people way way better or weaker than you. And what is the point of that?

Also I must point out that you are a bit presuptuous here. Sure you can resign if you want but expecting your opponent to so just because it is what you would have done? Pure arrogence. Perhaps the guy believes that he can fight for a draw? Perhaps he is at a stage in his career where a win is less important than learning and he is practicing his piece play? Do you know that when England stood alone against Germany in the second world war Hitler wrote a letter to the English asking them to surrender? He stated that there was no reason for the war to go on since the end was a forgone conclusion and that he was not the vanguished begging for relieve but the man speaking from a position of strength appealing to the voice of reason. And we all know how that war ended.

Do you honestly want to tell me that you have never drawn or lost a game after going up material?<br><br>Post edited by: Fallen Angel, at: 2008/11/19 10:01

[Fallen Angel]

I apologise for being a bit hard in my reply. I had no idea you are an elder citizen. Also I had no idea you are a math teacher. I like math myself but I am not up to teacher's standard. I have a world of respect for people good at math. Still what I said is reasonably true. Chess is more than counting numbers and I myself have played many lost games simply because of the practise it gives.

[Mathsteach2]

Many thanks, Fallen Angel, for your quite lengthy and insightful post. You are quite correct, it was arrogant of me to suggest when others should resign. This was a mistake, I was really enquiring to sort out my own inexperience, as I mentioned in my first post, when I asked where was I going wrong!

Your take on mathematics is interesting too. My experience there was obviously influencing my thinking. There is a lot more to chess than just the maths! :-)

[ChessTeacher]

Most of the time your opponent will be of the same strength.
Most players resign when they are sure that they will win the game when playing with the other pieces. This is the reason that a beginner has to play the game till the end and a grandmaster ends the game as soon as the advantage becomes clear.