4 ms·

> between good players, a one-piece advantage is enough to cause the disadvantaged party to resign. Is this accurate? I would have assumed that, say, positioni

• flr03 6y ago
  The answer is both. Ie, pawns holding the centre of the board have a higher relative value than pawns on the sides. At a very high level, if a player end up resigning because of a one piece advantage it's because they have already processed the next few turns and know there is no way out.
• chegra 6y ago
  Very accurate, you should trade off pieces quickly when you are ahead, thus solidifying any gains. Also, if you are more than 3 points behind, at least with strong players, it's best that you invest your energy into a new game where you didn't blunder.
• dmurray 6y ago
  Yeah, it means a one-piece advantage (and specifically, a "piece" in this context means a bishop or a knight) with everything else being equal. It's possible for one side to have a crushing positional advantage that is worth more than a piece, but that's relatively rare. For 90% of quiescent positions reached by strong players where one side has the advantage, "count the pieces" is indeed enough to tell you which side it is.
• nemo44x 6y ago
  Yes, to a point. A knight is often considered “less” than a bishop, but trading your bishop that is on the same color as your pawns for a knight that is covering the center is generally a “good trade”. Or taking a piece that is stuck or unlikely to be a threat while putting your own, possibly lesser piece at risk may be a poor play too. Game dynamics matter too. Knights do well in closed games where as bishops are nicer in open games. Games tend to open as time goes on though. And then of course if sacrificing to setup a mate soon - that’s the entire goal of the game so in that situation positioning is quite important. Counting the pieces is pretty indicative of most games I’d say though. Against poor players you can be down quite a few pieces while setting up a back rank mate the opponent just doesn’t see. But this would never fly at moderate skill levels.
• bluGill 6y ago
  There are exceptions (see other comments), but between good players they almost never allow the other player to get a better position after giving up the piece. That is they see the attempted sacrifice and how much worse (better for the other player) the board is afterwards and don't take it. Thus most piece losses are a blunder, and they know that the opponent knows how to win (unless they make a return blunder, which is unlikely). That is at the high levels. I play my down positions, because I'm not playing anyone that good. I learn a lot and my opponents often enough will make return blunders I can take advantage of. (I typically lose anyway, but it works out often enough to be worth trying) One other consideration: in a tournament situation it might be better to resign and take a nap. You can then come into your next game well rested while your next opponent might be worn out from his last game. A loss and a win is better than a low odds chance at a draw but probably a loss and a game that you play tired and so have decreased odds of a win and might lose as well. Psychology like this can be important.
• ht85 6y ago
  To add to the other answers, part of it is also etiquette. If the only way you could recover a game was your opponent doing a really bad blunder, at a rating where such blunder is very unlikely you should simply resign. Obviously, you have to take the whole situation in consideration. If the position is very tricky, you would play on even anyway. If your opponent is low on time, then it depends on your opinion on "dirty flagging". This only applies to the top, as a +3 advantage is definitely not a guaranteed win unless you're at least a titled player.