| From | Message |
dr_dread
11/16/2007
15:19:20
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: resigning lost positions...
Message:
Occasionally I read in the forums that players should just resign a lost position and stop wasting the other opponents time by dragging out the game,perhaps even by adding time outs and vacation.To some extent,I agree with this,but there is one reason,I myself have "stalled"and dragged out a lost position,that most opponents wouldn't even think about...I tend to play very fast players and usually request this when I post a game.So lets say,for example, my opponent is playing 20 games with other opponents and say 4 or 5 of them that I look over closely show that my opponent is about to win those games,either by a mating net or I see that my opponent has a large material advantage in those games and is about to win,or I suspect that the opponent playing my opponent is about to resign.
If those wins "come in" like they have in a few cases that I have analyzed,this means that my opponent gains say,40 points or more.
Now what does this all have to do with justifiably "stalling" a lost position?
Well,my opponent may not like it,but when I resign the lost position,instead of losing 10 points,I may only lose 8 or 9 points!See?So it was to my advantage to stall !!
NOW,believe it or not,I have "stalled"on a won position where I was going to mate a guy in about 8-10 moves.Why would I "stall"the game by taking the full 3 days and adding time outs if necessary?The reason is simple....my opponent was about to cash in on several wins,rasing his rating about 30 points and that boiled down to another point for me being 11 points for the win instead of 10 !So by "waiting an extra 2 or 3 weeks i gained another point.
Don't laught please,but you see,on the higher levels of play like I get involved with,with 2000-2200 players its really a "grind" to gain points,and if your goal is say,2200 like mine is,an "extra"point or two once in a while helps alot!
Just some insight reasons to some of those players who hate a "staller",but thats life!
|
nathanman22
11/16/2007
15:41:16
[ report abuse ] | I hate it
Message:
When people say that you should resign a lost position, mainly because--who defines a lost position? See, I have played "losing" positions in which most people would stop and resign--and have WON! I have been 10 points or more behind and come back from behind to win a game that was unexpected. So who is to say the game is truly lost--it's stupid to force a person or complain if a person does not resign--because it may very well be that the person still has a chance. I don't give up unless there is absolutely no hope of a comeback. It is our right as players here to take our time, stall if necessary, and play out games as long as we want--and people who complain should just shut up about it....and deal with it. I have two games right now that I really wish the people would give up--but I know I can't force them and am perfectly willing to wait it out--even if it means I don't get to the D1 league this century. That is their choice--and far be it from me to complain at them because of their slower play--they may have situations in their life keeping them from playing--I have had these times as well. I don't understand why so many people here lack understanding about these things. I will wait patiently as long as it takes--because life is more important than chess--and lost positions may really not be lost. I believe that others can play as long as they want against me as well--if they think there is a chance to win. I don't expect a resignation, I must force it--until I do, the game is not over. So stop complaining people--and let people play....until they decide it's over!
-Nathanman22
|
dr_dread
11/16/2007
15:51:51
[ report abuse ] | I totally agree Nathanman....
Message:
The stall example I just gave is rare,because I normally am a very fast player,(check my profile).My ave.move time fluxuates between 1 and 8 hours.But "occasionally"I will stall if it means either less points in a loss or more points in a win!Plus with all the "work"I do checking my opponents other games out,I deserve it!Patience is my diabolic virtue!
|
spijker
11/16/2007
16:12:47
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Lost positions don't exist....
|
dr_dread
11/16/2007
16:32:34
[ report abuse ] | yes,your right...
Message:
I meant to say... a present position leading to a sure loss for my opponent or me.
|
lighttotheright
11/16/2007
17:10:08
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Checkmate! Lost positions do exist.
But if checkmate isn't forced, then it is not a loss yet. I'll continue playing a game that is lost when I am not sure whether my opponent can guarantee his win. That depends a lot on skill level and time left on the clock. If my opponent is highly skilled (you can tell by their rating and their games history), then I won't waste my time and will resign. It is a judgement call.
When I resign a lost game, that frees up time for me to concentrate on other games. That means I can be more productive and focused. It also means that I can analyse my lost game to see where I went wrong. Resigning can be just as or even more productive than stalling for a point or two...IMHO.
|
nathanman22
11/16/2007
17:51:47
[ report abuse ] | I wonder
Message:
if there is a difference between a lost position and a lost game. Checkmate is a lost game....but a lost position seems to be a matter of opinion--because to some, it's not really a lost position...
-Nathanman22
|
ccmcacollister
11/16/2007
23:08:21
[ report abuse ] | A good point ...
Message:
Perhaps we Should differentiate between a Lost Game and a Lost Position. The latter being the ungrammatical but generally accepted way of saying a Losing Position. Considering for a moment tho, why is it stated in the ungrammatical form? Because what is commonly being intended to say is that the position on the board will lead to loss of the game vs best moves played by both players. The completely objective assessment. Not just "GM" moves, but non-improvable play. And the human factors do not apply: clock-time, rating, determination, etc.
The reasoning for saying LOST instead of LOSING
position tho, is due to the implication that the result will be after all objectively best moves are played. Or at least to say all the Best Defensive moves were made vs all non-survivable continuations by the stronger side, for a definition of the minimum requirements to call it a Lost Position ... for the winning side actually needs only One continuation that is Good Enough to win vs Best Defense, to justify calling it LOST.
***
As suggested tho, maybe we should consider a Lost Game to be something different.
Some would again say, that it is Lost only when a Mate sites upon the board. But perhaps it would be clarifying if we were to have a term that also applies the human, and practical factors to the game. Losing Game then might mean "a C player could win it vs a GM" (to borrow one of the definitions USCF was using for when a TD could
call a board position Drawn due to insufficient losing chances). Or should Losing Game mean that considering ALL factors and circumstances, even blunder potential, the weaker side will lose it barring miracles.
Then it becomes completely subjective as to when we might say that a K vs N+B is LOST; or even a King vs Rook or King vs Queen in consideration of their small potential for stalemates or non-mate within 50 moves ...
Of course, in that case we might also have to look at some Starting Positions and say "White has a LOST Game here", if perhaps Black happens to have a 1000 rating point advantage?! Wait, I've seen that happen (to Me of course, losing to 1100 player), we better say 2000 rating difference to be safe!? Actually, according to ELO
we could consider an near even position, such as Start, to be a Lost Game for any player that is 400 points or more lower than their opponent.
While perhaps Reasonable, it doesn't seem a very Nice stance, to declare it LOST before the game Starts!>?! }8-D
( And besides that, while such an outcome in ELO is considered nearly statistically forced ... in real life, it just doesn't work that way! )
|
ccmcacollister
11/16/2007
23:18:36
[ report abuse ] | PS -OR- ....
Message:
Must we develop a P/C phrase for this all, such as "Black has a position of heightened losing potential, subject to factors of individualized abilities and current Karma balance or propensities for divine interventional alterations manifesting during the course of his games ..."
|
lighttotheright
11/17/2007
00:01:25
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I resemble that remark in some strange way. 8-)
|
dr_dread
11/17/2007
04:20:24
[ report abuse ] | wow...
Message:
all these great remarks,thanks fellow players!All I wanted to say is that there are good reasons for stalling a game sometimes whatever the outcome,if you know that it will either save your rating alittle or add to it!There has been remarks i've read at different areas of the forums on this site and other sites that basically state that an opponent should resign whether in blitz or the 3 day games,if they are in a mating net for example and perhaps even illustrated this,by the other opponent! But point wise it may be even "wiser" to wait if you know,that by waiting it will give you an additional point or lessen the point loss,and this can be calculated ahead of time with some degree of theoretical accuracy.
|
yanm
11/17/2007
04:45:07
[ report abuse ] | A game is never lost until checkmate
Message:
Have a look at  game. I almost resigned around move 25 but finally decided to play on...
dr_dread: I guess you might just gain a few points by using your approach. I'm not sure it is worth the inconvenience experienced by your opponent or even you. I might be wrong thought.
|
dr_dread
11/17/2007
04:49:26
[ report abuse ] | for example...
Message:
Lets say i'm playing opponent xyx and he shows me that I will be mated in 3 moves.I message him back and say,yes,i see that i will be mated in 3 moves and totally agree with his findings....YET I do not resign and wait to resign,say in 9 days(3 day game x 3 days).Why?Because after looking at his profile I see that a loss will cost me 10 points.But i also see that he has what appears to me to be a "highly probable" couple of other wins coming up very shortly,say in the next 4 or 5 days which will raise his rating alot(i've checked his other games or asked him).If this occurs,then I can calculate all of this ahead of time....(GK has provided most of this by illustrating what a win,loss or draw point outcome will be.)If his wins will gain him 40 points in the next few days,then i'll wait because at that new rating,I will only lose perhaps 8 or 9 points instead of 10! See?The same with a scenario where I have someone in a mating net for example.Sometimes,if i know that my opponent is going to win a few games in the next week or 2,i'll intentionally "stall" my moves somewhat or even HOPE,yes HOPE that my opponent also "stalls"so that instead of winning 10 points,I have done some calculations that show I will have a gain of 11 or 12 points with his soon to be new rating!Understand?
|
hollcana
11/17/2007
07:11:47
[ report abuse ] | Have to Admit
Message:
I would say stalling given by dr_dread constitutes exactly one of the reasons what players hate. As long as the game continues at it's own pace (whether you resign or play to being Mated is immaterial), but then to delay for reasons outside the game is intolerable.
|
spijker
11/17/2007
09:26:35
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Is it not so that the Elo calculation is with the Elo's that the players have when the game started?
|
cyberknight999
11/17/2007
09:32:21
[ report abuse ] | The rating used is
Message:
the greater of the player's rating at the start and the end of the game.
|
ccmcacollister
11/17/2007
09:40:19
[ report abuse ] | SPIJKER
Message:
Unless it has been changed and I am not aware of that; then the rating used for your opponent would be the highest of: His rating at the start of the game, OR his rating at the finish of the game. The higher of those two is calculated vs which ever of your ratings was higher; your start rating or finish rating.
[That is why it is not often accurate how many rating points you would lose or gain vs an opponent when you look at their profile to see about it during the middle of your game in progress ... because their profile tells how many points you get vs their rating of the day you look at the profile, which will likely be different then their Start rating. Unless you ended the game on the same day you viewed their profile for rating change.
Then it might be accurate if that is the higher rating, that day.]
|
ionadowman
11/17/2007
12:54:40
[ report abuse ] | I've come late...
Message:
... to this discussion, but having read ccmcacollister's remarks on what constitutes a "lost game" and/or "lost position", I have my own thoughts on the matter.
I think Craig sets quite a rigorous for a 'lost position". I've tended to the view that a position is objectively won/lost - or even winning/losing - if a decisive result is foreseeable with reasonable play. Of course, the word "reasonable" has a fuzzy definition itself, but it involves the absence of short-range tactical or strategical blunders that alter the material/spatial/temporal situation sufficiently to alter one's assessment of the likely result. A rather circular "definition" - a philosopher would find it indefensible - but the fact that the defender of a "lost game" sometimes means the situation is fuzzy anyhow... (Further complicating things is that I draw a distinction between "won/lost" and "winning/losing". The former indicates the defender really has no play; the latter that the defender yet retains resources to fight on).
There are situations that will require a much tighter definition, of course. To illustrate this, consider this position:
w
It is White's move, but he is a whole rook down. A lot of Whites would resign this position; many who don't resign would lose very quickly. "Reasonable play" is very likely to end up in a Black win. But with BEST play, White can draw this:
1.Nf6 Rh6 2.Ng4 Rg6 (or 2...Rh4 3.Ne5 threatening a fork on f3) 3.Ne5 Rf6 4.Ng4 Rf4 5.Ne5 ... and if White wants to make any progress at all, he'll have to give up his knight. A rook vs knight ending, with defenders placed as they are in the centre of the board, is "objectively" drawn, but I would not blame any player of the superior side to play it out.
Just to show how particular winning and drawing positions can be, suppose we were to alter the position one piece by just one square:
w
The Black king has been moved just one square to the right. Now this position really is winning for Black:
1.Nf6 Rh5 2.Ng4 Rh4! 3.Ne5 Nf6 and Black keeps his knight and therefore his whole rook advantage. Even so, a lot of Whites would find the presence of the knights sufficiently complicating to make the win problematical.
So resignation is a judgement call, and maybe to some extent a courtesy call as well. However, in what I would consider a lost game (let alone a losing but fightable game) resignation is just one of the options open to the player. It's his call, no one else's. Though it may seem discourteous to play on in "obviously" "hopelessly" "lost" positions, it is by far more ill-mannered to draw attention to this discourtesy.
Just one man's view...
Cheers,
Ion
|
chessnovice
11/17/2007
17:35:59
[ report abuse ] | ...
Message:
This discussion comes up pretty regularly on Gameknot (chess in general, really), and I always look forward to these replies ionadowman gives. If anything, it's a worthy endgame lesson.
My stance is to avoid resigning when there's still a possibility of winning. If I'm on the bad end of a K vs. K+R ending, I'll resign. But if I simply blundered a piece in the midgame, I'll see what I can make out of it. I'm not at the skill level where I know that my opponents will maintain fraction-of-a-pawn advantages to victory. I've managed to come back (or at least put up a good fight) from too many unfortunate positions to justify giving up on them.
If my intent were to stretch out the game just to be annoying, I could understand the point that it is rude. But for me, at least, the purpose is to learn and improve rather than to irritate.
|
dr_dread
11/17/2007
17:46:11
[ report abuse ] | I enjoy reading the remarks...
Message:
and there is nothing to figure out,its simple.The higher my opponents rating is the more points or partial points I will get.Again a delay of a few days is advantageous to me.I might only get 10 points for a win if i move quickly and make my usual 2 moves a day to end my mating net as soon as possible,but if i see he's about to cash in on 4 wins raising his rating 40 points or more and my rating is LESS than his,theres a pretty good chance i'll gain atleast one additional point by making 1 move every 3 days instead of 2 moves every day!No,this method is not being rude,improper,bad etiquette,ect.Everthing is within acceptable rule guidlines...i'm just taking 3 days instead of 1 day to make moves.As to time outs,well,thats the extreme,and i have no time outs or vacation,but even then everything is within the rule guidlines.Now do i do this often?Of course not,but once in a great while its done.All fair in war and chess!I call this "grinder"points and its an old trick(legallly used trick) that many opponents apply,probably on this site as well without the other opponent even being aware of whats really going on!If the player dosen't like me taking slightly longer,well,sorry,but that too bad...please don't cry!
|
spijker
11/18/2007
07:52:20
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Thank you for your explanation ccmcacollister! It is in the rules, which I haven't read very well. I think it is a strange system. I have looked at the ICCf website, but there I couldn't find the system used when playing in the ICCF webserver. Does anyone here know more about that?
|
paulg3121
11/18/2007
08:00:46
[ report abuse ] | But .. a truly lost position ...
Message:
But is it right to play out a really lost position? I realize no one has an obligation to resign, but I admit sometimes I get annoyed when it's my King plus Queen, or King plus Rook, against a lone king, and the game goes right on to mate.
|
spijker
11/18/2007
08:13:32
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
If you think you are going to lose a game, just resign and start a new game.......
If your opp. does not resign, just enjoy the coming victory a little bit longer, but always remember that a game is only won when it's mate or when the opp. resigns.
|
nathanman22
11/18/2007
10:50:43
[ report abuse ] | paul
Message:
There is always a possibility of a slip up to stale...and I will play the king-rook, king-queen
positions out with that possibility for a stale in the end. Another reason I may not move
games until the last minute has to do with what games I am focusing on. I don't always focus
one more than 5 games at a time--sometimes, I will be play a few at a time and put all my
emphasis into those games. For instance, for the last two weeks, I have had 8.5 pts in the D2
league but have not been promoted. I am near the top and almost there, but haven't been in
the league long enough to transfer with only 8.5 pts. I have been focusing on league games
right now so I can make it to D1 and have left other games alone for the moment moving only
when I have to. I have to prioritize so that I can play all games to the best of my ability.
This is another key reason for slowing down other games--for a more secure focus. I like to
always have games open to move in--so I play a lot, but my focus tends to be on certain
games and on those people who are online (if I can get to them)--or on GK tournaments if I
have a chance. So if another game is put aside, I don't feel bad--I get to it within my time
limit. This is not wrong--as long as it is within the bounds of time that I have for each game.
This is not cheating--it is actually WISE play. Furthermore, if life gets in the way--your wife is
having a baby, you have a busy week of school, business trips occur, or if you have computer
problems--all these are outside the bounds of the game (as stated earlier in this thread), but
are necessary reasons to postpone and put off games. Life comes first, chess second. Don't
complain because we have better things to do with our life than sit in front of the computer
screen refreshing it every 3-4 minutes to see if there is a new move (I have done this, but I
don't complain that others don't)--let us live...and let us play--the time limits are there for a
reason, and when we are in the bounds of the limits that are set--there is no reason to
complain--especially since when you started the games, you agreed to the time limits.
*steps down off his soapbox*
Have a great weekend!
-Nathanman22
|
smoky56
11/18/2007
10:53:59
[ report abuse ] | Do the right thing
Message:
I don't think anyone has a right to ask anybody to resign a game for any reason. BUT I think everyone has the obligation to finish ALL games in a timely manner. win, lose or draw. You can try to justify stalling a game all you want but my own opinion is that people who have to rely on methods other than their own best ability are the trailer-trash of the games.
|
ionadowman
11/18/2007
11:04:57
[ report abuse ] | aulg3121...
Message:
... all you can do in the K+Q vs K or K+R vs R situation is to treat it as chess revision.
Or maybe your opponent is seeking instruction in those elementary endings. After all, we all had to learn them.
I recall several years ago watching 9 to 12 year olds playing in primary school tournaments and, in their inexperience, playing down to mate. No one objected to this, of course. So you got endings with K+4Q vs K, sort of thing. Now, the beauty of this for the spectator was seeing so many utterly spectacular stalemates!
w
White has 8 ways of checkmating on the move that I have found so far. But White insists on getting his 4th queen, so...
1.h8=Q ... Stalemate.
;-)
Ion
|
smoky56
11/18/2007
11:17:48
[ report abuse ] | focusing on a few games
Message:
If you can only focus on, lets say 5 games at a time, then why do you start the 6th game?
|
cascadejames
11/18/2007
13:34:20
[ report abuse ] | Excellent Ion!
Message:
That stalemate is indeed a spectacle, and certainly the most interesting part of this thread so far.
:-)
|
nathanman22
11/18/2007
13:59:51
[ report abuse ] | smoky
Message:
Because if I have more games running I always have someone to play. If I only have 5 games, I can focus on those games, but I am unlikely to have someone to play at any time. The idea that just because I don't play all games at once I should only have the amount of games I play is wrong. I have a right to play as many games as I want to play and to take as long as the allotted time if I so choose--and if I want to have someone to play as much as possible, I will open as many games as possible--might as well maximize my membership by playing in minitournaments, gk tournaments and league games....again, it's a choice--if you don't want to play me, don't join my tournaments, don't play GK tournaments (if there's a chance we will be in the same one), don't play me in the league, and don't join my games--if you join you take that risk....because there are many like me who have a life...and who love chess...we just can't always be in front of the computer all the time. Life is more important than chess....
-Nathanman22
|
smoky56
11/18/2007
14:37:31
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I only ask that when you are going down that 25-50 or 100 game list don't skip me just because I got the upper hand. It seems all too convienent that a lot of these players focus on their other games as soon as they fall behind.
|
wschmidt
11/19/2007
08:57:34
[ report abuse ] | It seems to me we've got
Message:
two different conversations going on here. The first is dr_dread's original post about delaying a resignation and the second is what constitutes a lost game.
I think dr_dread raises an interesting question. Clearly resigning a bunch of games to lower your rating (enabling you to enter a lower tier tournament, for example) is unacceptable manipulation. So is not resigning a lost position (setting aside the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion of what is a lost game) because you see a good chance that your opponent's rating will increase if you hold off also manipulation?
I tend to think not. We all weigh decisions about whether to resign, draw or bpush on for a win based on our opponents' ratings. And the information about the status of our opponent's games is publically available (something that wasn't the case in the days of postal correspondence play). I think that information is there to be used. If, by using it, you can eke out a point or two on your quest for 2200, I'd say go for it.
I should say, however, that this opinion comes from one who also firmly believes that endgame tablebases should be permitted in GK play and it still iks me that that prohibition was put in place without being thoroughly vetted. ws
|
nathanman22
11/19/2007
09:05:40
[ report abuse ] | smoky
Message:
You need to consider why someone might stall a losing position....I stall a losing position because I am taking more time to analyze those games and think about the best possible move (case in point, my GK 36 tournament games against Dr. Pots and Danielsans....)...I do not stall just because...Do you know for certain the reasons behind the stall? I mean is it a life problem that requires time, studies, work, or just taking more time to analyze--or do you always assume the worst case scenerio--he's losing so he's just trying to be annoying or doesn't want to play? Now you are judging motives. In any case, if someone specifically asks me to move in a game, I will move for them...out of respect for them...if they ask nicely. I do not respond well to vicious attacks and complaints....
-Nathanman22
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
