i agree with almost everything you said, as intermediate player...by the way, i usually turn off chat online, because i play blitz/bullet for the most...i think that speaking in/post game is a thing only for longer matchs, personal opinion.
@F1R3F3N1X said in #2:
> i agree with almost everything you said, as intermediate player...by the way, i usually turn off chat online, because i play blitz/bullet for the most...i think that speaking in/post game is a thing only for longer matchs, personal opinion.
I definitely agree post mortems are generally for longer matches. I have never had regular post mortems in blitz time controls (or less).
> i agree with almost everything you said, as intermediate player...by the way, i usually turn off chat online, because i play blitz/bullet for the most...i think that speaking in/post game is a thing only for longer matchs, personal opinion.
I definitely agree post mortems are generally for longer matches. I have never had regular post mortems in blitz time controls (or less).
I still don't see the point of resigning. I never resign in OTB and I've never got any mental problems like anxiety. The only reason I sometimes resign is in arenas, to play more games. In my opinion, you should never resign and play till the end. There's nothing to lose and a lot to win. And I don't care about others saying things about sportmanship or things like that. I also like offering a draw when I'm totally lost, and people complain a lot. What's wrong with that?
Very nice post, I agree with basically all of it. I once read here in lichess that you should only resign when you'd win the reversed position 10 out of 10 times with 30 seconds in your clock against a GM, if not you shouldn't resign. However, this post is much more detailed and can be applied to many situations.
@patrickrg said in #4:
> I still don't see the point of resigning. I never resign in OTB and I've never got any mental problems like anxiety. The only reason I sometimes resign is in arenas, to play more games. In my opinion, you should never resign and play till the end. There's nothing to lose and a lot to win. And I don't care about others saying things about sportmanship or things like that. I also like offering a draw when I'm totally lost, and people complain a lot. What's wrong with that?
I didn't think about including resigning in Arena format as a benefit to play more games. I remember applying that strategy when I played in an arena a while back -- good point.
On your other point, it is your right to play the full game. No one who understands chess would deny that. And in my opinion, the sportsmanship argument is a reasonable one at the local level. If you play OTB, you're going to encounter the same people often, so the good will you garner from resigning when you should is more valuable than the occasional fluke win or lucky draw, in my opinion.
When you travel to play chess, or for high-stakes prizes, I am personally more reluctant to resign.
> I still don't see the point of resigning. I never resign in OTB and I've never got any mental problems like anxiety. The only reason I sometimes resign is in arenas, to play more games. In my opinion, you should never resign and play till the end. There's nothing to lose and a lot to win. And I don't care about others saying things about sportmanship or things like that. I also like offering a draw when I'm totally lost, and people complain a lot. What's wrong with that?
I didn't think about including resigning in Arena format as a benefit to play more games. I remember applying that strategy when I played in an arena a while back -- good point.
On your other point, it is your right to play the full game. No one who understands chess would deny that. And in my opinion, the sportsmanship argument is a reasonable one at the local level. If you play OTB, you're going to encounter the same people often, so the good will you garner from resigning when you should is more valuable than the occasional fluke win or lucky draw, in my opinion.
When you travel to play chess, or for high-stakes prizes, I am personally more reluctant to resign.
@promoment said in #5:
> Very nice post, I agree with basically all of it. I once read here in lichess that you should only resign when you'd win the reversed position 10 out of 10 times with 30 seconds in your clock against a GM, if not you shouldn't resign. However, this post is much more detailed and can be applied to many situations.
Yea, I think that is a reasonable rule.
Yea, I have always wanted to write something very comprehensive on resigning because I have never seen anyone do it. The truth is, I have tons more content I could add in. I started trimming content as this is the longest article I have written so far, and I felt the topic might be a bit of a gamble in terms of interest. But I went for it anyway.
I just love looking into these kinds of things. Like I had a thought after I published the article. The thought was "Resigning is more valuable in some formats versus other formats." Patrickrg hit the nail on the head when he brought up resigning in an arena-format event so you can play more games. But in divisible prize fund events, resigning has less value than in swiss system events where tiebreaks matter more. I know it is weird to think of "resigning having value," but it does. Anyway, eventually I will put together another chess book and maybe include expanded discussion on some of this stuff.
> Very nice post, I agree with basically all of it. I once read here in lichess that you should only resign when you'd win the reversed position 10 out of 10 times with 30 seconds in your clock against a GM, if not you shouldn't resign. However, this post is much more detailed and can be applied to many situations.
Yea, I think that is a reasonable rule.
Yea, I have always wanted to write something very comprehensive on resigning because I have never seen anyone do it. The truth is, I have tons more content I could add in. I started trimming content as this is the longest article I have written so far, and I felt the topic might be a bit of a gamble in terms of interest. But I went for it anyway.
I just love looking into these kinds of things. Like I had a thought after I published the article. The thought was "Resigning is more valuable in some formats versus other formats." Patrickrg hit the nail on the head when he brought up resigning in an arena-format event so you can play more games. But in divisible prize fund events, resigning has less value than in swiss system events where tiebreaks matter more. I know it is weird to think of "resigning having value," but it does. Anyway, eventually I will put together another chess book and maybe include expanded discussion on some of this stuff.
Isn't there some pride thing going on about if I don't resign now, I will look like I don't know how to play this, and I am curious to learn about it. Or, I will annoy the other player, for their other games stamina... hell I don't know. I would never resign, unless very tired, and some plan failed because I did not see something that I should have... Resigning on a draw from such mood...
Normally, as a few posts here, but in my amateur non-club, non OTB context, i.e. online correspondence (yes), I tend to annoy the others for my curiosity about not running to the full attrition to known endgame too fast, and even then, I might enjoy some new thing I would not be familiar with. (not too far from familiar, like hmmm, I wonder what that does? but the opponent would wonder why the beating the bush around). I like to be near familiar but not really, so there might be more attention needs.
I guess this has nothing to do with high stake games, or psychology. and now going to read how you people (kidding) do it. Ok. I have missed a earlier episode of these blogs. An interesting set of point of views to ponder.
I have always depended on the wanting to play with me more than against me in all my naïve uneducated past chess experience before lichess (online chess), not many different players over long periods of few games. Even here, I tend to prefer long series of games with the same person. The conclusion advice, which I read after reading first paragraph, seems to say not to worry about the others expectations, but I find it difficult.
I also do not like that my opponent resigns too early, or that I would win on a short term error. I don't think all context beyond the board lend to same dilemmas. Also one might be having different fun out of chess.. It might be that low level or high level play but high stakes, make for strategies about such decision emerge, but when fun or curiosity about the chess wilderness that 2 people can stroll through, I wonder if one can talk about strategy, more than etiquette (not sport, but social agreement). It might not even be a game there, but making friends over a common activity.
And as a joke, from a database point of view, with data analysis or machine learning curiosity, having to continue aborted (my word) games, is kind of a waste of game, left to subjectivity that way... All depending on some common sense that might be a fluctuating or moving target. But that is not really an argument, who cares about this...
Normally, as a few posts here, but in my amateur non-club, non OTB context, i.e. online correspondence (yes), I tend to annoy the others for my curiosity about not running to the full attrition to known endgame too fast, and even then, I might enjoy some new thing I would not be familiar with. (not too far from familiar, like hmmm, I wonder what that does? but the opponent would wonder why the beating the bush around). I like to be near familiar but not really, so there might be more attention needs.
I guess this has nothing to do with high stake games, or psychology. and now going to read how you people (kidding) do it. Ok. I have missed a earlier episode of these blogs. An interesting set of point of views to ponder.
I have always depended on the wanting to play with me more than against me in all my naïve uneducated past chess experience before lichess (online chess), not many different players over long periods of few games. Even here, I tend to prefer long series of games with the same person. The conclusion advice, which I read after reading first paragraph, seems to say not to worry about the others expectations, but I find it difficult.
I also do not like that my opponent resigns too early, or that I would win on a short term error. I don't think all context beyond the board lend to same dilemmas. Also one might be having different fun out of chess.. It might be that low level or high level play but high stakes, make for strategies about such decision emerge, but when fun or curiosity about the chess wilderness that 2 people can stroll through, I wonder if one can talk about strategy, more than etiquette (not sport, but social agreement). It might not even be a game there, but making friends over a common activity.
And as a joke, from a database point of view, with data analysis or machine learning curiosity, having to continue aborted (my word) games, is kind of a waste of game, left to subjectivity that way... All depending on some common sense that might be a fluctuating or moving target. But that is not really an argument, who cares about this...
Well, I could maybe have as hypothesis that common sense is this list.
Q+Q Checkmate
Q+R Checkmate
R+R Checkmate
K+Q Checkmate
K+R Checkmate
K+B+B Checkmate
K+Q vs K+N Checkmate
K+Q vs K+B Checkmate
K+1 pawn vs K (Draw)
K+1 pawn vs K (Win)
However, in correspondence, having spent so much time on a game, I find it hard to quit by running toward such endgame I might know, I have a heart the wining but it has to be something new with some clues but some fog also, so that losing does not have the high stake psychological sequels, I seem to gather (not just from your blogs, although they are thorough and seem honest on the psychology, but motivationally slanted, but debating).
Yet for my own needs I will review those. hypothetically. I might be making a point social play that is not competitive, while the game still is, on the board. That might shift the reasonings, with some intersections about the reputation aspect. But it might be more direct social interaction. We do not seek to win as much as make it interesting for each other. In my kind of scenario of serial games with same person.
I am glad to learn about all concerns from high stake walks of chess. Anyone can relate without having to be in that context. I did skip some of it though, the examples I guess. I think the elements were laid out prior, and the contingencies on the game seemed to be a full chronicle of chess psychology from the tournament life. Those might make more sense to people having to face such conditions. Not my place to comment.
Q+Q Checkmate
Q+R Checkmate
R+R Checkmate
K+Q Checkmate
K+R Checkmate
K+B+B Checkmate
K+Q vs K+N Checkmate
K+Q vs K+B Checkmate
K+1 pawn vs K (Draw)
K+1 pawn vs K (Win)
However, in correspondence, having spent so much time on a game, I find it hard to quit by running toward such endgame I might know, I have a heart the wining but it has to be something new with some clues but some fog also, so that losing does not have the high stake psychological sequels, I seem to gather (not just from your blogs, although they are thorough and seem honest on the psychology, but motivationally slanted, but debating).
Yet for my own needs I will review those. hypothetically. I might be making a point social play that is not competitive, while the game still is, on the board. That might shift the reasonings, with some intersections about the reputation aspect. But it might be more direct social interaction. We do not seek to win as much as make it interesting for each other. In my kind of scenario of serial games with same person.
I am glad to learn about all concerns from high stake walks of chess. Anyone can relate without having to be in that context. I did skip some of it though, the examples I guess. I think the elements were laid out prior, and the contingencies on the game seemed to be a full chronicle of chess psychology from the tournament life. Those might make more sense to people having to face such conditions. Not my place to comment.
@dboing said in #9:
> Well, I could maybe have as hypothesis that common sense is this list.
>
> Q+Q Checkmate
> Q+R Checkmate
> R+R Checkmate
> K+Q Checkmate
> K+R Checkmate
> K+B+B Checkmate
> K+Q vs K+N Checkmate
> K+Q vs K+B Checkmate
> K+1 pawn vs K (Draw)
> K+1 pawn vs K (Win)
>
> However, in correspondence, having spent so much time on a game, I find it hard to quit by running toward such endgame I might know, I have a heart the wining but it has to be something new with some clues but some fog also, so that losing does not have the high stake psychological sequels, I seem to gather (not just from your blogs, although they are thorough and seem honest on the psychology, but motivationally slanted, but debating).
>
> Yet for my own needs I will review those. hypothetically. I might be making a point social play that is not competitive, while the game still is, on the board. That might shift the reasonings, with some intersections about the reputation aspect. But it might be more direct social interaction. We do not seek to win as much as make it interesting for each other. In my kind of scenario of serial games with same person.
>
> I am glad to learn about all the concerns from high stake walks of chess. Anyone can relate without having to be in that context.
Yea, I included this list because if a person does not know those specific endgames inside and out, then they cannot funnel endgame scenarios into the most common victory conditions, either. Also, if you don't know those checkmates, then others you're playing at your level also might not know them, and they may stalemate you. But against a seasoned player, you'll just lose, and you're wasting time, so to speak.
> Well, I could maybe have as hypothesis that common sense is this list.
>
> Q+Q Checkmate
> Q+R Checkmate
> R+R Checkmate
> K+Q Checkmate
> K+R Checkmate
> K+B+B Checkmate
> K+Q vs K+N Checkmate
> K+Q vs K+B Checkmate
> K+1 pawn vs K (Draw)
> K+1 pawn vs K (Win)
>
> However, in correspondence, having spent so much time on a game, I find it hard to quit by running toward such endgame I might know, I have a heart the wining but it has to be something new with some clues but some fog also, so that losing does not have the high stake psychological sequels, I seem to gather (not just from your blogs, although they are thorough and seem honest on the psychology, but motivationally slanted, but debating).
>
> Yet for my own needs I will review those. hypothetically. I might be making a point social play that is not competitive, while the game still is, on the board. That might shift the reasonings, with some intersections about the reputation aspect. But it might be more direct social interaction. We do not seek to win as much as make it interesting for each other. In my kind of scenario of serial games with same person.
>
> I am glad to learn about all the concerns from high stake walks of chess. Anyone can relate without having to be in that context.
Yea, I included this list because if a person does not know those specific endgames inside and out, then they cannot funnel endgame scenarios into the most common victory conditions, either. Also, if you don't know those checkmates, then others you're playing at your level also might not know them, and they may stalemate you. But against a seasoned player, you'll just lose, and you're wasting time, so to speak.