A Topic That Might Merit Discussion

Perhaps it doesn't merit discussion.

But I've never seen it discussed before, so why not bring it up?

Sometimes, we win a game in a way that promotes -- or at least confirms -- our growing respect for the opponent.

How can this be?

Sometimes, the opponent resigns at a moment when the validity of a resignation is not obvious, but is true nevertheless. But the opponent, setting aside ego and the will to win, penetrates to the truth of the position and decides ... to resign.

Have you ever felt respect when you saw an opponent make a "classy resignation," showing an admirable (because rather deep) grasp of his or her losing position?

Or am I just imagining this possibility.

I'm not talking about resigning in the face of a mate in one.

Of course, perhaps I'm making a serious mistake here -- should an opponent cling until his or her loss is obvious even to a beginner? Is that actually best practice?

Sorry if this thread is not needed. But recently I've seen some resignations that caused me to gain respect for the resigning opponent. And it occurred to me that the possibility of that is something I've never seen discussed before.

And this thread followed.

But perhaps it's too abstract. And I don't wish to embarrass any opponent -- I hope none of us want that. So any response should probably stay general, rather than citing a specific case.

Of course, I'm counting chickens before they've laid an egg. A serious response to this might prove to be a task nobody will undertake.

I don't know if this response will suffice, but I don't show contempt for my opponent when he/she resigns. Depending on the situation, I might feel bad for my opponent (not to the point of pitying the person, however). Sometimes a really strong opponent missed what seemed obvious. Maybe the person was tired. There are a lot of things that can (don't want to say the word "cause") help bring about a losing position. I know some people don't believe in psychology when it comes to chess. However, I don't claim to know what my opponent is going through. I might not be able to empathize with my opponent, but I can always TRY to understand what is happening, especially if the person is a friend.

I hate to see a really strong player make a blunder. Sure, it might mean points for the opponent, but that's not the only reason one should play chess...in fact, it can be a very poor reason. When I play a game, I might hope for a mistake or blunder from my opponent, but that might be due to my fear of losing. I really SHOULD hope that my opponent plays as well as he/she can and we can draw the game. My human side rears its ugly head. I want to win, perhaps, because I have lost (just a silly example) two back-to-back ladder games at the local chess club.

@Noflaps We might not agree on a lot of things, but I believe your thread is more than valid, if I may say so...thanks for posting it. Cheers.

Hello.
It is worth discussing.

I always play to the last trick before giving up, so I enjoy and respect that same attitude from my opponents.
Fighting on in "losing" positions makes you a more resourceful player and you either make an epic comeback or you learn from your rival's technique.
That accumulated experience will also help you to convert when you are the one with the advantage and your opponent keeps playing.

I personally believe people should always fight on -- I miss a lot of stuff hahah and you could easily win against me when I have even ten points more of material. However, I do resign often against opponents in positions that maybe aren't completely lost yet, usually because it's often more worth it time-wise when playing more casually to make up for lost rating on a new game, or to review the game quickly, instead of trying to be resourceful. If I'm against a much lower rated player though, I usually try to make threats (I played a game the other day on the green pawn website where I was down a rook, but used my +200 rating difference to intimidate by continuing to ask questions of the queen and rook until I eventually won both pieces).

That said, sometimes I also resign because I had to go. I don't think people should have necessarily huge opinions about the subject, sometimes people choose one way or another because of personal life and that's alright.

@woodfantasy said ^

Classic engine confusion. Been using an iOS app called 'ChessMinds · Chess Coach' (on the App Store) lately for my reviews because it breaks down the 'why' behind the blunder rather than just giving eval bars.

Can you give me an example of such a “why”?

Like if I don’t know why I blundered, how would the app know?

Obviously the app can’t know if I misclick or I’m just stupid. Or if I am playing with full attention or listen to an audiobook simultaneously. So I’m curious what the app uses as information.

My opponents at 1300 bullet rating try to flag from game start even in 2+1. Their king is open, three pins on board and still move time max 3 seconds with 1:30min left.
+30 in material and ladder mate setup? Let’s move that king! Maybe opponent is on train and loses connection or his phone stops working or his house starts burning or he has a heart attack?

If you think about how the glicko 2 works, your rating will be slightly inflated for a few games. I guess it’s just chasing the dream like a lottery player. And if it works, it’s probably also funny, like here where I was down to 4s at some point and kept panicking:

As far as I'm concerned, my opponents can never resign too early!
Sometimes they do in positions that are worse where I'd play on myself. But it's more common to see playing on to the bitter end even when there's no drawing chances or swindles. I believe these people are unable to come to terms with themselves and accept they're a loser.

@Rookitiki said ^

+30 in material and ladder mate setup? Let’s move that king! Maybe opponent is on train and loses connection or his phone stops working or his house starts burning or he has a heart attack?

Those problems are not common enough to play on for, the possibility of a blunder under time pressure is so much greater. There are also cases where a player will play like they are in time pressure even when they aren't, and blunder just the same.

Nice to see you again, @Noflaps; it sure has been a while.
I praise (your) thoughtful reflections, so this topic indeed merits discussion.

Simply put, my stance on "honorable resignation" is that I can respect my opponent's decision, but I would not do the same if I were in their shoes.
Suppose I have a positional advantage over my opponent where I can gradually apply pressure and eventually win. The advantage may be apparent, as moderate as it may be, yet causing my opponent to resign (in this case, since there could be other influential factors, as DoomedBishop previously said), showcasing their humility and a mutual understanding of the position. However, there is something romantic to fighting until the end. Being resourceful, taking risks, applying pressure while defending, etc. Sure, this may only prolong an inevitable defeat, but is defeat really inevitable? Just how DoomedBishop mentioned that an opponent could resign due to several possible reasons, the winning player could also make some mistakes or overlook something due to similar reasons. I have had many advantageous positions and still had my opponent pressure me until the end. And I admire that. And even more, I also enjoy that! The thrill of being at the verge of winning and the great possibility of defeat only makes a victory ever more pleasing.
This, however, is a romantic stance towards chess. There are also practical considerations to resigning, as greenteakitten previously mentioned, so there is no definitive or right answer.

I am glad that you brought up this discussion, Noflaps; it is nice seeing different people participating in a thoughtful discussion and sharing their opinions, and being able to participate myself as well.