Resigning Strategy

It made sense. It is hard not having been in such context for me to guess such things. I won't take it as tablet scripture, but it gives a rule of thumb from someone with your experience. I like it. And yes, you are right the stalemate "exceptions", and the game depending on opponent skill level estimation, are part of that picture.

But I take it more for when I play someone new, how to be not imposing my curiosity on them, or at least know that I might be pushing on some enveloppe or tolerance range. I might have weird skill gaps, too. I may lack the notion about what is expected move (slightly different from natural move, which for me is more about board logic, so visible on the current position or nearby, more than educated chess knowledge about move sequences). Or expanding on that, I did not even know that king and pawn endgames which I find difficult (or even rook king and lots of pawns), were not only difficult for me, but expectedly avoided. Sometimes reduction to known endgame annoys me (disappoint or party poops), as lack of curiosity. So I have to figure out what those are considered obvious. My own map of skill gaps, from a sparse experience, might not be reliable as to what is new to the other.

I liked the part where you included the types of players ......... Some of those who request for take backs and you accept tend to decline when requested for one when the said move is clearly a mis-click .... I've encountered a ton of such players which forced me to disable take backs and refuse accepting rematches since some player came in my inbox and started to spout nonsense with strong insults after losing a few games when he/she clearly offered the rematch so i no longer accept rematches for my own good and disabled the chats and any rematch I get is in only tournaments i play in.

@godlytriad said in #12:
> I liked the part where you included the types of players ......... Some of those who request for take backs and you accept tend to decline when requested for one when the said move is clearly a mis-click .... I've encountered a ton of such players which forced me to disable take backs and refuse accepting rematches since some player came in my inbox and started to spout nonsense with strong insults after losing a few games when he/she clearly offered the rematch so i no longer accept rematches for my own good and disabled the chats and any rematch I get is in only tournaments i play in.

Yea, I do not accept takebacks, either. I very rarely mouse slip, but when I do I just accept it and move on. Sometimes it becomes a challenge, other times I resign on the spot because of the error.

Interesting blog... I never thought of analyzing the decision about resignation so deep, while I'm no intuitive player at all, this is most often rather a question if I feel like going on or if I see some sense in it. Sometimes I blunder but I still see some potential for counterattacks or for "having fun" and giving my opponent some opportunities to make mistakes and I go on. Other times I lose a piece and there is nothing to do, just waiting for a slow death and hoping for my opponent to mess up and I don't really see the motivation. Of course, the off-board factors also play a role, e.g. in the 4545 League (team tournament) I would often keep playing even in games where I would have given up if I played just for myself.

Side note: there are different levels of "isolationists". E.g. I play in zen mode because I want to minimize the distractions during the game (I also prefer not to know if I'm supposed to win or lose and focus only on what is on the board) but I like discussing the game once it finishes.

@mkubecek said in #14:
> Interesting blog... I never thought of analyzing the decision about resignation so deep, while I'm no intuitive player at all, this is most often rather a question if I feel like going on or if I see some sense in it. Sometimes I blunder but I still see some potential for counterattacks or for "having fun" and giving my opponent some opportunities to make mistakes and I go on. Other times I lose a piece and there is nothing to do, just waiting for a slow death and hoping for my opponent to mess up and I don't really see the motivation. Of course, the off-board factors also play a role, e.g. in the 4545 League (team tournament) I would often keep playing even in games where I would have given up if I played just for myself.
>
> Side note: there are different levels of "isolationists". E.g. I play in zen mode because I want to minimize the distractions during the game (I also prefer not to know if I'm supposed to win or lose and focus only on what is on the board) but I like discussing the game once it finishes.

Yes, I think this will be one of my least popular blog posts, and I knew that going into it. I think a lot of people pass on reading about resigning because they have their own views on it. But yea, it is a topic one can dive deep on. I actually cut a lot of material to make the article more manageable. I think I could write about 50 pages on resigning, and all its implications lol

I agree there are different levels of isolationists, and likely different levels of each personality type.

I always thought it odd to be told to never resign even in very simple, clearly lost positions with nothing on the table outside of the game (not playing in a tournament, etc.) on the chance an opponent will stalemate by mistake. Sure, it saves me some 20 Elo rating... but an opponent blundering stalemate because they got complacent, with no input from me in forcing that error, is not a reflection of my skill. Seeking to improve is good, but thinking about that solely in terms of your Elo rating is poisonous to development– getting lucky is not developing, and teaching players to hope to be lucky is bad for learning. Now of course, there's a difference between "getting lucky" and knowing the realities of the skill level you play at, and not resigning down 5 points of material without compensation in the middlegame is certainly justified at the intermediate level. But it's that "pure luck", where you do not need to provide your own thinking and input to make it a good thing for you, that "never resigning" seems to chase. It is better for new and developing players especially to instead learn to process losing in a way that can be constructive, instead of trying to win each game, as if they exist in isolation, at the expense of all else.

IMHO it depends on the nature of opponent's blunder. If I have some active counterplay and opponent happens to fall for a trap I created or misses a tactics I did not, the draw or win does still feel deserved to some extent, even if lucky. But the idea of waiting passively and hoping does not really appeal to me. So e.g. it's unlikely that I would be moving the king up to the end in the hope that my opponent messes up the checkmate by a queen; but while in recent lichess.org/4sg2SuEM/ I probably should have resigned much earlier, if I didn't forget to check the clock and by some sheer luck the game went on like 54... Rb6 55. g7 Rxf6+, I could still feel like I have shown some effort to earn that half point.

@Stormy85 said in #16:
> I always thought it odd to be told to never resign even in very simple, clearly lost positions with nothing on the table outside of the game (not playing in a tournament, etc.) on the chance an opponent will stalemate by mistake. Sure, it saves me some 20 Elo rating... but an opponent blundering stalemate because they got complacent, with no input from me in forcing that error, is not a reflection of my skill. Seeking to improve is good, but thinking about that solely in terms of your Elo rating is poisonous to development– getting lucky is not developing, and teaching players to hope to be lucky is bad for learning. Now of course, there's a difference between "getting lucky" and knowing the realities of the skill level you play at, and not resigning down 5 points of material without compensation in the middlegame is certainly justified at the intermediate level. But it's that "pure luck", where you do not need to provide your own thinking and input to make it a good thing for you, that "never resigning" seems to chase. It is better for new and developing players especially to instead learn to process losing in a way that can be constructive, instead of trying to win each game, as if they exist in isolation, at the expense of all else.

Most of the time, you aren't even saving 20 elo lol It is more like 3 - 8 points.