From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: resigning wusses
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:30:59 GMT

In article <92286.201954RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
|> i don't like to resign, even when i am pitifully far behind.  sure, my
|> opponent would have to get suddenly hit in the head with a brick for him
|> to mess up, but who knows, maybe he'll suddenly get hit in the head with
|> a brick.
|> 
|> but when i look at all these chess games posted, i almost never see
|> "checkmate."  everybody resigns.
|> 
|> now i know that this is because not everyone wants to play to the bitter
|> end, when the outcome is guaranteed (barring random brick attacks).  so
|> i don't want an explanation of why this is so.
|> 
|> what i want to know is this: if i join some chess club, and get my
|> buttocks whupped, will people be mad if i don't resign?


	You have the right to play on till mate.  You also have
	the right to bathe only once per month.  Exercising either
	of these rights is likely to undermine your popularity.

	Essentially it is a matter of cost-benefit.  If I'm a piece
	down with no compensation against a master I'll resign
	(assuming also that the master is not in time pressure)
	as playing on will only bore both of us, with an infinitesimal
	chance of my saving the game.  Probably I'm giving up
	.01 of a point or so, on the average, but is that worth
	two hours or more of boredom?  If I'm a piece down with
	no compensation against a 1400 player, however, I wouldn't
	dream of resinging.  Such a person is going to have to prove
	he or she can beat me, even a piece up.

	Then there is the practical matter of fatigue.  If this is
	not the last round of the day, why spend considerable energy
	on a hopeless position when you may need that energy later?
	Mathematically, you may gain an average of .01 points
	fighting on in a lost position, but lose an average of .1 points
	by being more tired in the next round(s).  You are particularly
	likely to become unpopular if you drag out a hopeless game
	until the beginning of the next round.  Your opponent may be
	in line for a prize if he wins his next game - if you make him
	miss his chance to get something to eat, or to take a breather
	between rounds and he then loses the next game and the prize...
	don't expect him to like you much.

	Lastly, you will be laughed at.  A friend of mine (rated 2150)
	was two pieces up (with queens exchanged) against a texas player
	(rated 1900).  The man played on and on "with the light of hope
	in his eyes" as my friend expressed it - even when he lost a further
	exchange.  Whenever we introduced someone from outside to
	the delights of texas chess, this poor bastard was brought
	in as an example - and a good laugh was had by all.

	On the other hand... a friend of mine in Texas resigned
	when his opponent sacrificed a piece.  Only afterwards did he
	discover that while taking the piece was fatal, declining it
	led to a playable game.

	So...  

	Don't resign because you see a forced win for your opponent.

	Don't resign if you have any doubt about your opponent's
	ability to win the "won" position (either because of lack
	of time or lack of strength).

	Don't resign if you know you are lost but cannot see how he
	is going to win (i.e. if you can learn by having the winning
	process demonstrated).

	But..

	If you are down a piece for a pawn or worse against an
	opponent with both the strength and the time to win,
	then you should resign unless there are unusual circumstances.

	Sorry to go on for so long, but I've spent many boring hours
	demonstrating why an extra knight wins - and I've never lost
	that type of won position.

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess