I see COUNTLESS posts on people who get mad when their opponent does not resign when it APPEARS they are beaten. Here is the OFFICIAL unwritten etiquette on resignation that is practiced on EVERY tournament circuit in the world. And yes, I was once a USCF tourney player.

If there is ANY shred of hope that you can win on time...DONT RESIGN.

If there is ANY shred of hope that IF your opponent makes a huge blunder, then the tide of the game will turn...DONT RESIGN.

If there is ANY shred of hope that a stalemate, draw by 3 fold rep., or the 50 move rule can be enforced...DONT RESIGN.

In short, once should NEVER resign unless you're so outclassed (for example: you have a bishop remaining and your opponent has 2 queens, 2 rooks, and a knight).

Resigning is ACTUALLY frowned upon in competitive OTB play and should be RARELY done.

TRUE STORY: A long time ago, when I was playing USCF tourneys (and getting my butt handed to me) my opponent had mate in 10 or so moves. I had a bishop and he had a bishop and queen. There was a lot of time left and I was getting the evil eye for not resigning. He was getting flustered as I smirked. I was doing anything I could to get under his skin. And I did. With my death imminent, he dropped his queen on a square and my bishop slid across the board and took it...DRAW!!! He muttered the "F" word as I stuck my hand out for a handshake and sneered out a "good game".  Take the win anyway you can get them.

cheater_1 wrote:

I see COUNTLESS posts on people who get mad when their opponent does not resign when it APPEARS they are beaten. Here is the OFFICIAL unwritten etiquette on resignation that is practiced on EVERY tournament circuit in the world. And yes, I was once a USCF tourney player.

If there is ANY shred of hope that you can win on time...DONT RESIGN.

If there is ANY shred of hope that IF your opponent makes a huge blunder, then the tide of the game will turn...DONT RESIGN.

If there is ANY shred of hope that a stalemate, draw by 3 fold rep., or the 50 move rule can be enforced...DONT RESIGN.

In short, once should NEVER resign unless you're so outclassed (for example: you have a bishop remaining and your opponent has 2 queens, 2 rooks, and a knight).

Resigning is ACTUALLY frowned upon in competitive OTB play and should be RARELY done.

TRUE STORY: A long time ago, when I was playing USCF tourneys (and getting my butt handed to me) my opponent had mate in 10 or so moves. I had a bishop and he had a bishop and queen. There was a lot of time left and I was getting the evil eye for not resigning. He was getting flustered as I smirked. I was doing anything I could to get under his skin. And I did. With my death imminent, he dropped his queen on a square and my bishop slid across the board and took it...DRAW!!! He muttered the "F" word as I stuck my hand out for a handshake and sneered out a "good game".  Take the win anyway you can get them.

 what the hell are u talking about? the point?

Oh GOD, CHESSLIFE. I sure as heck hope that you DO NOT represent the lot of chess.com users. You cant possibly be that DOPEY. Must I hold your hand like I do everyone else's?

"I see COUNTLESS posts on people who get mad when their opponent does not resign when it APPEARS they are beaten. Here is the OFFICIAL unwritten etiquette on resignation that is practiced on EVERY tournament circuit in the world."  THAT IS THE POINT!!! Dopey. Get it? Got it? GOOD!

read, its in english

cheater_1 wrote:

Oh GOD, CHESSLIFE. I sure as heck hope that you DO NOT represent the lot of chess.com users. You cant possibly be that DOPEY. Must I hold your hand like I do everyone else's?

"I see COUNTLESS posts on people who get mad when their opponent does not resign when it APPEARS they are beaten. Here is the OFFICIAL unwritten etiquette on resignation that is practiced on EVERY tournament circuit in the world."  THAT IS THE POINT!!! Dopey. Get it? Got it? GOOD!

 thanks

Oh GOD, CHESSLIFE. I sure as heck hope that you DO NOT represent the lot of chess.com users. You cant possibly be that DOPEY. Must I hold your hand like I do everyone else's?

"I see COUNTLESS posts on people who get mad when their opponent does not resign when it APPEARS they are beaten. Here is the OFFICIAL unwritten etiquette on resignation that is practiced on EVERY tournament circuit in the world."  THAT IS THE POINT!!! Dopey. Get it? Got it? GOOD!

Don't be stupid, you should resign if you are sure that if you were playing the opposite side, you could beat even a grandmaster.

a lot of GMs will resign just being down a bishop, or a knight.

JDeCo wrote:

a lot of GMs will resign just being down a bishop, or a knight.

Because of the following axioms:

1.) They are most likely playing another grandmaster

2.) What dwaxe said (If you were playing the opposite side, you could beat even a grandmaster)

Why should anyone resign because his opponent wantsm him to do so? It is the fighting spirit that keeps the game live!!Try to win till you lose!!

I play OTB all the time and that's just not true. It's considered poor etiquette not to resign a clearly lost game and wait until mate is delivered. It is also a sign of a weak player and pointless. Of course, clearly lost varies based on the skill of the players. However, being down a Rook (without compensation) is more than enough to warrant resignation for any reasonable player. Still, it is certainly not against the rules to play on as long as you like.

chessmates wrote:

Why should anyone resign because his opponent wantsm him to do so? It is the fighting spirit that keeps the game live!!Try to win till you lose!!

It isn't because your opponent wants you to, it's because it's unnecessary and futile. In fact, if my opponent told me to resign, I'd play on till mate. He has no right to interfere like that.

I recently played a game on live chess where due to my fritzy optimal mouse, I lost a queen, due to my opponent being good and my general crappiness I lost several other pieces, I played some very random crazy looking moves that made my opponent waste time pondering over, and eventually I ran from like 15 checks and won on time :)

When you commit to play a certain time control you have comitted yourself to that amount of time. Just because a person may have more respect for their own chess skill than their opponent does is no reason to insist a person resign. Mostly just the self important arrogant types that take this tone anyway so who cares what they think.

If you are up a rook, who cares if you're opponent doesn't resign? My opponents never resign at the Dallas Chess Club (even if they're down a rook) but I still win quickly anyways! It doesn't bother me a bit!

I personally don't like when my opponents resign on me.  I would prefer to play it out to the end even if I am obviously winning, as it keeps my endgame skills in practice - and believe me, I need it!

true cheater why resign

The fact that this was written by cheater_1, should really open some people's eyes - this is the same guy that has no problem cheating...

TiagoDevesa wrote:

THis is the first post by Cheater_1 I belive to be usefull

cheater_1 can be quite pompous, but he certainly is not stupid.

I am one to hold off resignation until it is quite clear that my opponent is intent on not blowing the game. I will try to misdirect, confuse and, if possible, set-up a tactical maneuver in an attempt to salvage at least a draw. There are players this works with, and there are players that clearly aren't going to be duped.

I guess my answer to the question of when to resign is simply this: it depends.

hallo

I agree with Clay

it depends , and I like to ask my oponent if  ; i can resign

but first gona try misslead him ; a slate or other kind of draw is gona be like win to me .

Mean while even if it is a mg may I can learn hhow to endup.

love ...