4 ms·

The worst part about that match is, Anand spent 50+ minute on one move, to loose all the time advantage he had pushed carlsen into. First I thought, it was to

The worst part about that match is, Anand spent 50+ minute on one move, to loose all the time advantage he had pushed carlsen into. First I thought, it was to make Carlsen loose his nerve, but he lost his own nerve, by moving Qe4, instead of slow push hh4. That was the turning point :( He went from winning position to a clear loss. Also, I don't get the point of resigning, on this level, it should be a fight till the end, no matter how shameful.

peeters 13y ago
I don't see anything wrong with resigning. First off, it acknowledges your weak position, which saves you some face for at least knowing. Second, it is a strong compliment on your opponent's skill, because only poor play from your opponent would put you into a draw/win situation. This in turn is classy, because it's saying "I want to win on my own merits, not on a mistake of my opponent." So honestly I think it makes everyone look good.
- robrenaud 13y ago
  Fuck looks/face/perception. I don't care what you think about me. I just want to win (within the rules, of course).
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    Once you get a reputation for playing out positions more than a rook down, you may have a harder time getting tournament invitations, sponsors, collaborators, etc. If you're an amateur, soon even your friends won't want to play you.
    - jrs99 13y ago
      it's about personality. some players do play on for a while and it is part of the rules and has nothing to do with tournament invitations. You can play for as long as you want within the rules, and every once in a while, people do just that. Others will resign very prematurely and they say so. They say they just didn't "feel" the position. Computer analysis later on says they are equal in position, though.
    - jrs99 13y ago
      If Carlsen started playing out all his games do you think he wouldn't be invited into tournaments? He'd be in the tournaments, it would just be a waste of time for him to play out all the games, when he is certain to lose. instead, he resigns and relaxes his mind and winds down before the next game.
      - auctiontheory 13y ago
        If Carlsen started playing out all his games do you think he wouldn't be invited into tournaments? I think that if Carlsen had started out in life being a brat, he wouldn't have got much support to get to where he is today. Besides, other players are not Carlsen. E.g. Topalov seems to receive fewer invites than other comparable players. Could it be because of his (and his manager's) abominable behavior during two WC matches?
    - slyall 13y ago
      I know a kid (age about 10, rating around 1900) who doesn't resign ever. He'll be a couple of pieces down against a player 400 points better and still play on. It doesn't make him popular, it wastes the time of the opponents who have to sit around for an extra half hour and we even have to warn visiting players to expect it. His opponents will sometimes create 3 Queens or similar just to make him look stupid. If you get a reputation then others will start to treat you like an idiot. Eg one strong player recently played out the full 50 moves of K+R vs K+N against another strong player, possibly to "punish" past behavior.
- DanielStraight 13y ago
  Indeed. The comment about "on this level" shows a misunderstanding about high level play. It's at low level play where it makes sense to play it out because a low level player is less likely to realize they are in a losing position, and a low level opponent is actually fairly likely to make a mistake that could turn the tide. At high levels of play, continuing to play implies that you think you have some chance of winning and that it is therefore worth both players' time to continue the game. If you know you shouldn't win, you are either implying that your opponent may make a stupid mistake that would let you win (an insult to their ability) or you are assuming a right to their time for the mere formality of finishing the game. At a low or mid level of play, it might even make sense to say that you know you should resign, but you'd like to play it out to see just how the checkmate happens and thus learn more about the game (and giving your opponent that chance to take the resignation rather than assuming you may have their time), but no one is going to learn anything from playing out a losing position at this level of play.
- apalmer 13y ago
  In this case, dude lose because of a clear blunder... players of all levels make blunders, so there is some benefit in always playing a game till the end... Its more a question of mental stamina, are you gonna spend 8 hours of concentration on something you have less than a 1% chance of winning... maybe a true overlord of chess would be willing to do this...
- maaaats 13y ago
  One of the games this match, the commentators said that this was almost a forced draw, slightly advantage for Carlsen but no way he could win with it, and that they should resign. Carlsen played on, grinding, and a few non-optimal (not blunders) from Anand, and Carlsen won. Today it was a clear win, so I agree shaking the hand and end the game was right. But not always.
gokhan 13y ago
Anish Giri says the advantage is already lost on 20. axb4 and it appears that the blundered position was a forced draw at best. https://twitter.com/anishgiri/status/403532152685346818 https://twitter.com/anishgiri/status/403532152685346818
TylerE 13y ago
Saving mental energy.
qq66 13y ago
Mental exhaustion or "burnout" is a very real thing. Just like many professional athletes stop trying or substitute out when their team has no hope of winning, resigning the game allows you to preserve your mental energy for your next game.
jkarni 13y ago
First, presumably you mean Qf4, not Qe4 - there was no Qe4 in the game - and h4, not hh4. Second, you're the only chess-playing entity (human or computer) I've come across who thinks after Qf4 anyone is clearly lost (and I think it's almost as debatable that after h4 the position was winning). Third, at this level especially it's absurd to continue playing a rook down with no compensation.

peeters 13y ago

I don't see anything wrong with resigning. First off, it acknowledges your weak position, which saves you some face for at least knowing. Second, it is a strong compliment on your opponent's skill, because only poor play from your opponent would put you into a draw/win situation. This in turn is classy, because it's saying "I want to win on my own merits, not on a mistake of my opponent." So honestly I think it makes everyone look good.

robrenaud 13y ago
Fuck looks/face/perception. I don't care what you think about me. I just want to win (within the rules, of course).
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  Once you get a reputation for playing out positions more than a rook down, you may have a harder time getting tournament invitations, sponsors, collaborators, etc. If you're an amateur, soon even your friends won't want to play you.
  - jrs99 13y ago
    it's about personality. some players do play on for a while and it is part of the rules and has nothing to do with tournament invitations. You can play for as long as you want within the rules, and every once in a while, people do just that. Others will resign very prematurely and they say so. They say they just didn't "feel" the position. Computer analysis later on says they are equal in position, though.
  - jrs99 13y ago
    If Carlsen started playing out all his games do you think he wouldn't be invited into tournaments? He'd be in the tournaments, it would just be a waste of time for him to play out all the games, when he is certain to lose. instead, he resigns and relaxes his mind and winds down before the next game.
    - auctiontheory 13y ago
      If Carlsen started playing out all his games do you think he wouldn't be invited into tournaments? I think that if Carlsen had started out in life being a brat, he wouldn't have got much support to get to where he is today. Besides, other players are not Carlsen. E.g. Topalov seems to receive fewer invites than other comparable players. Could it be because of his (and his manager's) abominable behavior during two WC matches?
  - slyall 13y ago
    I know a kid (age about 10, rating around 1900) who doesn't resign ever. He'll be a couple of pieces down against a player 400 points better and still play on. It doesn't make him popular, it wastes the time of the opponents who have to sit around for an extra half hour and we even have to warn visiting players to expect it. His opponents will sometimes create 3 Queens or similar just to make him look stupid. If you get a reputation then others will start to treat you like an idiot. Eg one strong player recently played out the full 50 moves of K+R vs K+N against another strong player, possibly to "punish" past behavior.
DanielStraight 13y ago
Indeed. The comment about "on this level" shows a misunderstanding about high level play. It's at low level play where it makes sense to play it out because a low level player is less likely to realize they are in a losing position, and a low level opponent is actually fairly likely to make a mistake that could turn the tide. At high levels of play, continuing to play implies that you think you have some chance of winning and that it is therefore worth both players' time to continue the game. If you know you shouldn't win, you are either implying that your opponent may make a stupid mistake that would let you win (an insult to their ability) or you are assuming a right to their time for the mere formality of finishing the game. At a low or mid level of play, it might even make sense to say that you know you should resign, but you'd like to play it out to see just how the checkmate happens and thus learn more about the game (and giving your opponent that chance to take the resignation rather than assuming you may have their time), but no one is going to learn anything from playing out a losing position at this level of play.
apalmer 13y ago
In this case, dude lose because of a clear blunder... players of all levels make blunders, so there is some benefit in always playing a game till the end... Its more a question of mental stamina, are you gonna spend 8 hours of concentration on something you have less than a 1% chance of winning... maybe a true overlord of chess would be willing to do this...
maaaats 13y ago
One of the games this match, the commentators said that this was almost a forced draw, slightly advantage for Carlsen but no way he could win with it, and that they should resign. Carlsen played on, grinding, and a few non-optimal (not blunders) from Anand, and Carlsen won. Today it was a clear win, so I agree shaking the hand and end the game was right. But not always.

gokhan 13y ago

Anish Giri says the advantage is already lost on 20. axb4 and it appears that the blundered position was a forced draw at best. https://twitter.com/anishgiri/status/403532152685346818 https://twitter.com/anishgiri/status/403532152685346818

TylerE 13y ago

Saving mental energy.

qq66 13y ago

Mental exhaustion or "burnout" is a very real thing. Just like many professional athletes stop trying or substitute out when their team has no hope of winning, resigning the game allows you to preserve your mental energy for your next game.

jkarni 13y ago

First, presumably you mean Qf4, not Qe4 - there was no Qe4 in the game - and h4, not hh4. Second, you're the only chess-playing entity (human or computer) I've come across who thinks after Qf4 anyone is clearly lost (and I think it's almost as debatable that after h4 the position was winning). Third, at this level especially it's absurd to continue playing a rook down with no compensation.