How Do You Resign

[Michael Farthing]

Hmm. 2 minutes each? With perfect play that's about 3.5 seconds a move to accomplish the mate. Remember we were both well below 2000. I couldn't do it.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Those who are over-powered by the most basic, often childish, emotions conceivable have not been participating over-much in this discussion, so perhaps I should come out and represent them!

I did once throw my king across a congress room - though in frustration at my own failure to be in control of and engaged in a rational, thought based activity.

I had king and bishop against king, bishop, knight and pawn. The pawn was on the 7th rank and its queening square controlled by my bishop. Time was short and my opponent was resisting the inevitable pawn/bishop exchange that would allow her to mate me with bishop and knight. There was a gathering entourage of players keen to see this traditional endgame test performed over the board. What do I do? Move my king into the line of sight of my bishop on the queening square.

I did apologise to my opponent for the unseemly display (and as I recall it didn't inconvenience anyone as I think we are the only continuing game). Her response was , "That's ok - I thought it was quite funny actually". Such childish behaviour I believe can happen to any of use in extremis: I hope I won't be banned from future congresses because of it.

I have swept the pieces off the board once - and only once - three decades ago in an evening league match.

Dead drawn R + P ending, despite my opponent having a pawn more - I wanted to get home and became increasingly frustrated my draw offers were repeatedly turned down (that I had missed several wins earlier in the game didn't help my mood) Eventually, I left my rook en prise

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Is there anything in the ruling concerning double resignations? Presumably its happened before? The game is declared drawn I take it?"

Double loss might be more appropriate!

[Richard Haddrell]

"Is there anything in the ruling concerning double resignations? Presumably its happened before? The game is declared drawn I take it?" Double loss might be more appropriate!

Not a bit of it. It is nowhere stated that the player who resigns loses; merely that the opponent wins. So if both resign simultaneously, both win. It takes careful timing if done on purpose, and a complete trust in one's opponent. Worse, it doesn't work while the game is adjourned. During an adjournment, the game is only concluded if ONE of the players notifies the arbiter that he resigns.

[Jonathan Bryant]

[Dead drawn R + P ending, despite my opponent having a pawn more - I wanted to get home and became increasingly frustrated my draw offers were repeatedly turned down (that I had missed several wins earlier in the game didn't help my mood) Eventually, I left my rook en prise

To hijack the hijack of a hijack ...

I don’t imagine you still have the specific position, but I’d be interested in seeing it if you do. Or at least a rough description of the position.


I’ve been trying to think of a rook and pawn ending in which I would accept a draw offer if I was a pawn up. And I can’t (I’m excluding the kind of position when the other guy obviously has oodles of compensation). I don’t really see what’s to be gained. An repeated draw offers from an opponent would only encourage me to keep playing, to be honest, since 'other guy getting ratty/bored/emotional in whatever way' can only help improve my winning chances.

I did once turn down a draw offer from somebody who’d just reached Philidor. That was more an aesthetic choice (I’d prefer the game to end in the stalemate than just stop) than a winning attempt, though.

[Roger de Coverly]

I’ve been trying to think of a rook and pawn ending in which I would accept a draw offer if I was a pawn up.

I had a 2 v1 where I had the two (on adjacent files), but simplifying to 1 v 0 was obviously drawn because the defending King was correctly placed and the nonsense of stalemate being a win not applicable. It was with a thirty second increment so there was no necessity to agree a draw because of time shortage. So I played for thirty moves or so, realised I was getting nowhere, so restored the position to thirty moves earlier and offered a draw. Being the morning round of a two rounds a day tournament, you might want your lunch and a gap before the afternoon round.

I wasn't offered a draw. In increment play it might be considered bad manners as a fifty move rule claim will eventually be possible. In sudden death it's valid to offer as a challenge that the position cannot be won.

8/8/4r1k1/2R3p1/6P1/5P2/5K2/8 w - -

Obviously I can organise f3-f4, but that's just drawn because the defending King is well placed.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I wasn't offered a draw. In increment play it might be considered bad manners as a fifty move rule claim will eventually be possible. In sudden death it's valid to offer as a challenge that the position cannot be won.

Ah yes. Offering a draw rather than being offered one is rather different.

Repeated draw offers are a clear breach of etiquette regardless of position, of course, but yes ,I think offering a draw a pawn down in a rook ending is bad manners (on a sliding scale depending on where the pieces are).

The message you’re sending is not so much a question (would you like a draw?) as a statement (I think you should offer me a draw). It’s kind of redundant in one sense - given that the opponent would have offered a draw if they wanted one - but above all else it’s counter productive. Your simply giving the other guy a reason to play on.

I would make an exception for the last two minutes of a sudden death time control. In those situations it’s obviously absolutely correct to offer a draw and then call the arbiter to observe the resulting play when your offer is rejected.




While I’m here, I’m not sure I’d be so quick to dismiss the resulting 1 v 0 position in your game as drawn. After all in the British Championship in 2013 a 200+ECF rated guy managed to turn it into a lost position even with the king where it needed to be.

After shuffling about a bit with the 2 v 1, I think I;d have been tempted to trade down. Not with the expectation of winning. Just to see what happens.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Remember the (in)famous 1972 WC game when Spassky played on for 30-odd moves with R+2P against R+1P to "punish" Fischer? That sort of thing, Jonathan.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think offering a draw a pawn down in a rook ending is bad manners (on a sliding scale depending on where the pieces are).

The message you’re sending is not so much a question (would you like a draw?) as a statement (I think you should offer me a draw). It’s kind of redundant in one sense - given that the opponent would have offered a draw if they wanted one - but above all else it’s counter productive. Your simply giving the other guy a reason to play on.

It's not completely counter-productive. You can use a draw offer to see how confident you think the other person is about winning the position. If done with the proper psychology and some confident (and correct) moves, you may encourage a reciprocal draw offer a few moves later.

[Jonathan Bryant]

You can use a draw offer to see how confident you think the other person is about winning the position. If done with the proper psychology and some confident (and correct) moves, you may encourage a reciprocal draw offer a few moves later.

You really think so? Seems unlikely to me.

That line of reasoning seems to rest on the incorrect belief that the opponent is playing on because s/he expects to win.


I can see your argument in other kinds of positions, but not for the type we’re discussing here.

Remember the (in)famous 1972 WC game when Spassky played on for 30-odd moves with R+2P against R+1P to "punish" Fischer? That sort of thing, Jonathan.

Ah OK. There was a similar one in the Karpov - Korchnoi 78 match. I’d play those positions on for sure (unless there were outside factors to consider, e.g. needing to get to lunch before the second game of the day as Roger suggested earlier)

[Arshad Ali]

It's not completely counter-productive. You can use a draw offer to see how confident you think the other person is about winning the position. If done with the proper psychology and some confident (and correct) moves, you may encourage a reciprocal draw offer a few moves later.

Probably off-topic but a draw offer can often be used after one has made the first move in an attempted swindle. The offer is to lull the opponent into a false sense of security.

[Matt Mackenzie]

It's not completely counter-productive. You can use a draw offer to see how confident you think the other person is about winning the position. If done with the proper psychology and some confident (and correct) moves, you may encourage a reciprocal draw offer a few moves later.

Probably off-topic but a draw offer can often be used after one has made the first move in an attempted swindle. The offer is to lull the opponent into a false sense of security.

The only "flaw" in that being if the offer is accepted - but half a point is better than none in such situations, I suppose

[Jon Mahony]

I had an interesting incident at the Heywood congress a few years ago. I played a terrible Bishop sac in one of my games, which was easily refuted (I only noticed when I had moved) My opponent, took one look, removed his King from the board and shook my hand, thinking, as I had when I’d played the move it was forced mate.

After this, he placed all the pieces back and wanted to run through the game (in the playing hall, with most games still going on, something I am never comfortable doing). Now I didn't want to point out the refutation to the sac, as I could tell he was already upset and I didn't want to rub salt in the wound, but eventually he found it himself. After a bit of mumbling under his breath he looked up at me and said "Just play on from here" baring in mind we had been analysing the game 5-10 minutes. I told him I wasn't going to carry on as he had resigned. He became quite irate and stormed off to find an arbiter, saying moving his king from the board didn't constitute resignation.

Eventually, after quite a heated debate the arbiter awarded the game to me. But it was quite embarrassing sorting it all out - luckily if the arbiter had made us play on, I had an ace up my sleeve, I would have simply said "Okay you didn't resign, but you agree your last move was to touch your King and remove it from the board?" He would have had to say yes, then I would have invoked the touch move rule - having to move the king did result in mate.

I won't name the guy, as I later found out he had recently had a horrible time in his personal life, and probably wasn't himself, I've spoke to him at a couple of tourneys since and we have got along fine.