|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
QA has to publish a new book: "When the player has to resign". It´s a shame that some players continue the game with minus 3 pieces, with mate in 2 or 1... Sometimes, when the player has counter-game, it´s ok, but without any compensation, it´s an absurd! 
|
|
|
The rules of chess don't require anyone to resign.
|
|
|
Laws don't require you to say "thank you" when someone opens you the door either.
It's just good manners.
|
|
|
Thanks Seigneur! 
whyBish, I´m International Arbiter, I know the laws of chess. But I´m player, sometimes, and I know the "player laws"... 
|
|
|
Let me preface this with saying I'm not a strong player but I think the better solution is not to play anyone that has a vastly lower rating.
A player that is much weaker may not see an upcoming mate. Then there are positions that seem clearly won that may still hold chances of stalemate with best play, though the lower rated player probably would have to stumble upon it. You also never can tell when the opponent may be strong in the opening and middle game but weak in the endgame allowing the chance of equalization or in some situations, perpetual check.
I know when I play someone much stronger than I am I will resign if I am positive they are strong enough not to blunder in the endgame or I don't feel there is a chance for stalemate, though I will often play it out longer than my opponent may like.
One way we learn is by losing and analyzing those losses. If you don't play until the very end I feel you can lose some of that learning potential -- learning the best defense or even how the winning side plays the endgame.
I also understand the desire to be finished with an obviously won game. I don't believe the answer is to require resignations at some arbitrary point in a game. If it is problematic then don't play that particular player again or opponents that may not be strong enough to see an obviously hopeless position.
Even from the winning side of a hopeless position there are things that can be learned. I have had many where I missed quicker wins than I played and if my opponents had resigned earlier I would have missed the opportunity to learn from those mistakes.
|
|
|
Martin, I agree with you. When you have a chance to stalemate or the inferiority is in a end game, where you have chances if the other side blunder, it´s ok. I´m talking about that situation that you have 2 free pieces (knight, bishop, rook) or queen in advantage and the adversary don´t resign. I´m against a way to force resignation, I´m for teaching them the time to resign... 
Look for this example: http://www.queenalice.com//game.php?id=579914
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next |
|
|
|
