The British itself!

[Michael Flatt]

Why should players be bullied into resigning before they see the need themselves?

Juniors are encouraged to play a game to a finish as a means of building up their experience and resilience. How else can one develop chess technique if one is denied the opportunity to practice by playing out what might be considered a lost game, especially in the endgame?

Could it be that the superior player actually doesn't possess sufficient technique to quickly wrap up so-called 'won game', is fearful of making an embarrassing blunder or has simply overlooked his or her opponents resources?

Chess is a game played between two individuals. Shouldn't it stay that way?

[David Shepherd]

Couldn't agree more, Justin. I was taught to resign when you know your opponent knows he is going to win. Of course you have to be of a reasonable standard to understand when that is.

Its not that simple though - if you followed what you were taught maybe you would never resign at what point does believe become know? What happens if there is a fire for example - there seems to be enough fire alarms

[David Shepherd]

It seems to me its more a case of resigning when the win so easy for the opponent that it is no longer worth playing, and even then if checkmate is close and moves are played quickly no player should really object.

[Paul McKeown]

Ps - on late resigners, the answer is to just play slowly, patiently, and calmly yourself, preferably gobbling up additional material rather than bothering to give mate - i.e. just enjoy the victory for longer. Why worry?

This post really gets to the heart of the matter. Those who complain about people resigning "too late" appear to suffer from strange complexes, suppressed horrors and unspoken fears. If victory is really inevitable, relax: it's unusual to be able to play chess certain of winning.

[Stewart Reuben]

Malcolm Pein agrees with me that top level players, in games in front of an audience, often resign too early. e.g. in Gibraltar in one game, the commentator Simon Williams was unable to explain why a top GM had resigned. Weaker spectators have told me they find it unsatisfactory that games stop halfway through.
I suggested that, at the LCC, he should discourage premature resignations. He felt he shouldn't interefere for games that are rated. This is odd as the games are scored 3/1/0, which has a massive effect on how people play and shouldn't really be in the rating system.

Turning to more interesting matters.
Michael Fernandez gained 4.18 x k rating points. I believe this to be a record for the Brirtish Championship. John Emms in Plymouth gained 4 x k.
For John k=25 at the time. Thus he gained 100 rating points.
For Michael k=40. The system changed 1 July 2014, Thus Michael gained 167.2 points. Naturally it is easier to gain more points from 11 games than 9.
With k=40 a rating turns over in 750/40 games = 19. He should play as much rated chess as he can before 31 August in order to gain more points before his rating goes up in September.

[Paul Dargan]

I remember Hawkins had a 'large' result back in 2008 - but it appears to have been "only" +3.72

Paul.

[Simon Brown]

It seems to me its more a case of resigning when the win so easy for the opponent that it is no longer worth playing.

That's what I'm trying to say, but that it depends on the opponent. Going back to the game I mentioned originally (Hackner-Lewis), if I were White I would have resigned on about move 51 against Andrew, but if I were playing someone less experienced or weaker, I would have waited until my opponent had demonstrated that he knew what he was doing.

I have no problem with people not resigning a lost position if they don't know they are lost, or if a junior wants to learn how to play an ending, nor is this a bullying thing, as someone seems to think I have implied.

[Barry Sandercock]

I remember a game I had in the e2e4 Diamond Jubilee Congress at Gatwick where I was in a lost position where I should have resigned but was able to sac two rooks and get stalemate two rooks and a bishop down.

[NickFaulks]

For Michael k=40. The system changed 1 July 2014, Thus Michael gained 167.2 points. Naturally it is easier to gain more points from 11 games than 9.
With k=40 a rating turns over in 750/40 games = 19. He should play as much rated chess as he can before 31 August in order to gain more points before his rating goes up in September.

Michael already has 72 points coming his way in the August list. I think the popular complaint that the FIDE rating system makes it impossible for improving juniors to increase their ratings quickly enough may now be considered dead.

[NickFaulks]

Did we ever find out what happened on top board of round 5 in the U8?

[Stewart Reuben]

Dear Nick,
The new problem that arises with k=40 is an old problem revisited. A rating with k=40 will turn over in 19 games. Thus a player, such as Michael, can overshoot his correct new rating as Neil McDonald did in 1983. He reached 2395 without ever having a result as good as 2395.
There should have been a new rule that, if a player with k=40 plays more than 20 games in one list, then his rating is determined solely on the nw games. How that is calculated I leave up to you experts. The problem was already covered in rapidplay and blitz when I wrote the regulations. .

>Did we ever find out what happened on top board of round 5 in the U8?<
It may be taken further. Thus it would be improper to comment.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Overshooting will correct itself. It's double-overshooting that's the problem, but consistently playing 38 games a month is not exactly easy.

[Stewart Reuben]

Jack. Are you certain of that? A player has too high a rating due to overshooting. It is only more than 19 games for an U18 U2300. His rating will be corrected provided he plays rated chess. But then the ratings of his opponents will have been somewhat inflated.
For 30 years I have not understood what was wrong with introducing a 750/k rule to deal with this minor problem.

[IM Jack Rudd]

What matters is the absolute magnitude of the difference between his rating and his true strength, not the sign of that difference. 750/k is the sweet spot where the player lands perfectly on his true strength; (750+x)/k is no bett or worse than (750-x)/k in this regard.

[Lewis Martin]

It seems to me its more a case of resigning when the win so easy for the opponent that it is no longer worth playing.

That's what I'm trying to say, but that it depends on the opponent. Going back to the game I mentioned originally (Hackner-Lewis), if I were White I would have resigned on about move 51 against Andrew, but if I were playing someone less experienced or weaker, I would have waited until my opponent had demonstrated that he knew what he was doing.

I have no problem with people not resigning a lost position if they don't know they are lost, or if a junior wants to learn how to play an ending, nor is this a bullying thing, as someone seems to think I have implied.

I'll just say this on the resigning debate. It obviously varies from player to player, but no-one is forced to resign.

Yes, there are wins more trivial than others, in terms of endings, there are positions where it is not always so easy to win. If I was "winning" and my opponent wanted me to play on, I would not be offended. Of course, I'd prefer to have the win chalked up asap, but that is part of chess, sometimes you might get lucky.

It's like tennis: if there is a shot where all you can do is to lob it over nice and high, into the centre of the court by the net, you would take it, and I'm sure you have seen a tennis player miss such an 'easy' shot. Well, if you do this 100 times, you would hope to get lucky once for a miss. It is like this in some cases.

You might recall when the Women's World Champion at the time, a Grandmaster too, Olga Girya did not successfully win a knight and bishop endgame. Was her opponent (can't remember who) rude to play on and hope for a draw?

Incidentally, was my opponent (rated 1920-odd) rude against myself, rated at 2043 at the time, when he played on until checkmated in a knight and bishop endgame? I was not offended, and didn't mind to demonstrate a bit of skill even if getting there was rather taxing.

2700 players are usually professional players, very strong, almost out of this world for most people where even IMs and some GMs have a very small chance of even securing anything, yet alone amateurs. But it is not the same throughout for 2500s. Like Geoff Chandler mentioning about how viewing your opponent being an FM as not yet good enough to be an IM, (I'm not quite abrasive as that, but still) well, 2500s have a chink in their armour that they aren't as good as the elite players. For some, it might be some lines of an opening, middlegame or endings, it all varies.

Why on Earth would you not test them out? Just because they are expected to know, they might not! (Especially if exploiting the fact that they might be tired)

If I got into an endgame against Peter Wells (for example), and it was me on the winning end: if he played on until it was more obviously winning, you would most likely say "Oh, he's just testing him out" then why, if the tables were turned, should I be 'expected' to resign, and if I didn't, you would say: "He should have resigned much earlier, he has no respect for an experienced GM"? Just because he has a title or a higher international rating doesn't necessarily mean that I will 'keel over' when expected.

Anyway. That's my view.