It rather depends on what you call a losing position. In my opinion, too many people resign after blundering away a piece. I don't and often win from behind because of a mixture of an unbalanced situation and an inability of the leader to know what to do next. And do note that when a player has a piece or two undeveloped, until they are developed, they can not fully be considered to be ahead, so an apparent material loss does not have to affect play, certainly before the endgame. Play on...
When you're up a clean piece you're winning that game. He can try some tricks but when he runs out of them he should resign. Denying resignation in that kind of situation is disrespectful.
@Proba123: So when you blunder a 'clean' (w/e that means) piece, you should resign, else you're being "disrespectful"? Na, this just doesn't wash. People have lots of trouble converting "won" positions, and I myself have turned several games around from a piece down. As you likely have. Seldom in chess is anything so cut and dried.
MR
MR
@Microraver
I've already said and made a point. After loosing a clean piece you're loosing that game. You can try and hold that and give your best in counterplay if there is any. If you fail and get nothing except wasting time, denying resignation is disrespectful.
I've already said and made a point. After loosing a clean piece you're loosing that game. You can try and hold that and give your best in counterplay if there is any. If you fail and get nothing except wasting time, denying resignation is disrespectful.
Prob123 - 'I've already said and made a point. After losing a clean piece you're losing that game.' But what about when there are differences in development? Until those pieces are developed, that piece up is only a notional piece up. Should you resign because you've theoretically lost?
Read the part other people have written.
Maybe think about it this way, Proba123: Material is not the sole element of the game. To make a judgment based solely on material is dangerously simplistic.
I will agree and disagree with the above "clean piece" mentality - yes, when you're playing very good opponents, who play solid chess at all times, being a piece down is probably guaranteed losing. However, when you're playing an opponent who doesn't have the tactical acumen and honed vision, the odds are you'll win the piece back at some point, so I don't really have a problem with playing on to "make them earn it."
As @Microraver said, material isn't the sole measure of a position - it's just the most overt one because it's what we see first. For example, if you're down a piece but have superior structure and harmonious development, while your opponent has their extra piece blockaded or still completely undeveloped, you have a dynamic advantage that may override the static disadvantage. There's always a tradeoff one must respect.
As @Microraver said, material isn't the sole measure of a position - it's just the most overt one because it's what we see first. For example, if you're down a piece but have superior structure and harmonious development, while your opponent has their extra piece blockaded or still completely undeveloped, you have a dynamic advantage that may override the static disadvantage. There's always a tradeoff one must respect.
I think neither is disrespectful.
For the first, to paraphrase General Maximus in Gladiator, would you know when you were conquered? Would I?
For the second, I'll echo what many other people have said (and paraphrase another movie) about just not being that into you, or whatever opponent we're playing.
And I'll add, I often want to review my game analysis after playing an opponent.
And finally, to quote yet another movie, if Mr. Chess had thought we owed our opponents a second game, he would have made that one of the rules.
For the first, to paraphrase General Maximus in Gladiator, would you know when you were conquered? Would I?
For the second, I'll echo what many other people have said (and paraphrase another movie) about just not being that into you, or whatever opponent we're playing.
And I'll add, I often want to review my game analysis after playing an opponent.
And finally, to quote yet another movie, if Mr. Chess had thought we owed our opponents a second game, he would have made that one of the rules.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.