Yes, the point is that it is simple to prove that a position is lost. So simple that you KNOW a GM can do it blindfolded while standing on his head. What gain is there in actually making him go through the motions? Do you support playing on in a K+Q v K endgame hoping for a mistake that leads to stalemate or a repetition? Isn't that not giving up until the fat lady sings, and therefore fighting spirit in your eyes?

<<If you didn't notice, this is chess, not basketball> OK, you seem to have fighting spirit for fighting a losing argument, so be it :)

And please don't say that boxing is not like chess because I can find a milion diffrent sports to suggest my point.>

No, you just don't get it. You can make all the analogies you want, but you're still wrong. Chess is chess is chess is chess. It is unique in the very way that we are discussing it. It is common practice to resign a losing position. You don't do that in basketball, or baseball, or soccer, or whatever. So making analogies to those sports when discussing such a resignation shows that you don't know the purpose of making analogies.

Please, this is a simple concept -- argumentation by analogy is only good if the things being compared are similar enough in the respect being discussed.

<<<Greater players then me said that GM blunder as anyone else.> They blunder, but nowhere near as often as the rest of us. Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or joking.> Don't argue with me, as I said Greater players then me said it.>

Oh, sure. Just say that someone greater than us claimed this and therefore it's right. Well guess what -- I don't care if Fischer himself said this, it's simply wrong. Look at my games, then look at any GM's games (even Topalov). I HAVE MORE BLUNDERS. PERIOD.

<<<Morphy is the perfect example.> This is still utterly ridiculous. Morphy gave piece odds because he knew he was that much better than his opponents. Are you saying that Kamsky thinks he is that much better than Mamedyarov? THAT, my friend, is arrogance.> Morphy never demanded anyone to resign from a game. He allways had the "courage" to finish his games with a mate. He never raised his voice against an opponent and never acted ungentelmenly towards anyone. He, what stupid he is, thought that if you wanted people to know that you are a good chess player you should mate them.>

Of course he didn't demand resignation -- he was the one down a piece!! Let's review the train of thought: I think that if you are down a piece against a GM and don't get compensation, resigning is often the right thing to do. You told me that Morphy often played down a piece because he gave piece-odds. You then concluded that I should believe that Morphy should have resigned those games because he was down a piece for no compensation at all. But this is stupid because he was able to play down a piece because he was that much better than his opponents.

I wonder how Kasparov would have evaluated some other youngsters like Mamedyarov (or maybe Radjabov)cause there are more and more candidates competing in professional chess arena and the changing rate of top list becomes high.My idea is that future champs might face fierce chanllenges and it is unlikely that they could hold the title for more than a decade or two as some of their predecessors do.In this respect,the never-stopping arguable debates over who is a stronger chess player becomes more difficult to answer due to lack of any possible sensible measurement of "absolute" chess skill of a player.Any tiny factor may change the result of a game.The probable outcome is that the score between many pairs of top players tends to be"neutral"to both and the intensity level of future games are soaring.

The opposition today is much stronger than what past champs faced in their prime.

The jury is locked out in the rain as to which of today’s many super strong youngsters would make the semis of candidates let alone make the finals and win the title.

Would there be another 20-year ratings ruler like Kasparaov? I'd say no, very unlikely.

Then I remember tennis.

No sooner did Sampras break the 13-slam barrier (an achievement which took like forever to come by) than fans and pundits alike were saying there wouldn't be another Sampras or record break. Then immediately, almost by magic, Federer emerged!!

Who knows how these kids or those after would develop?

There may well be another '666 devil' like Kasparov lurking in one of them!>

What do you mean by that?
>

Too good? The people who played "lil Garry" would say he was too great.

<No, you just don't get it. You can make all the analogies you want, but you're still wrong> Since chess is considered a sport by most people, all sport's analogies hold when it comes to fighting spirit. You seem the think that chess is a game of losers that quit all the time. Things can happen. Lasker won a WC from a position you might resign in. If you can't produce the mate, you didn't finish your oponent, Lasker was worthy for his title and I don't care if you are that blind to what I am saying.

<<Greater players then me said ...> Oh, sure. Just say that someone greater than us claimed this and therefore it's right. Well guess what -- I don't care if Fischer himself said this, it's simply wrong. Look at my games, then look at any GM's games (even Topalov). I HAVE MORE BLUNDERS. PERIOD.> If I was to play soccer and Maradona would have said something to me, I would consider that to be at least worthy of my attention. Since you seem to forget that great players said that for a reason and tend to focus on your literal interpretation of the sentence we can't realy see eye to eye on this.

<I think that if you are down a piece against a GM and don't get compensation, resigning is often the right thing to do> Then don't take it the wrong way, but I think you are a loser if you do it in official tournaments. One time that master can blow up and you can even earn money from this.

Most is not the correct word there. Many people, sure. But I don't think you can just say most. For example, many people think that sports involve physical activity and chess is therefore just a game. Regardless, two activities being classified as sports does not mean that an analogy between the two necessarily holds. I still contend, and you have not refuted yet, that since it IS common to resign a lost position in chess, analogies to activities where it is not common to resign are quite pointless.

I don't think it's right to resign a basketball game because they just don't do that in that sport. I do think it's right to resign when you are facing the losing end of a K+Q v K endgame because people do do that in chess.

<<<Greater players then me said ...> Oh, sure. Just say that someone greater than us claimed this and therefore it's right. Well guess what -- I don't care if Fischer himself said this, it's simply wrong. Look at my games, then look at any GM's games (even Topalov). I HAVE MORE BLUNDERS. PERIOD.> If I was to play soccer and Maradona would have said something to me, I would consider that to be at least worthy of my attention. Since you seem to forget that great players said that for a reason and tend to focus on your literal interpretation of the sentence we can't realy see eye to eye on this.>

This is not what we have been arguing. I will personally play on until I know that I am lost, and even then maybe a bit more. But I am not a GM. I DO gain a lot from playing on in losing positions. I can try to learn to defend, I can see how the GM closes out the game. I can practice trying to generate counterplay and watch how the GM shuts that down. And if I'm playing a player less than a GM, I can still learn the same things. If I'm playing someone rated low enough, I can even have a decent chance of him returning the blunder.

But, Mam. will almost never return the blunder and Kamsky knows a good deal about chess already. You can not compare my games to theirs.

<<So, for you to be correct, you would have to say that Kamsky thinks that he (like Morphy) is able to beat Mamedyarov (like Morphy's opponents) at piece odds. And then you have to tell me that Kamsky wouldn't be arrogant to believe this. > Well, judging by the game itself, 38..c5 has drawing chances so I would say that would make Kamsky realistic.>

When Kamsky lost on time his position was still worse but arguably not lost anymore. In any case, he had made considerable progress after being down a piece for a pawn without compensation.

But here's a report confirming Mamedyarov blitzing Kamsky: <The following game provided most of the entertainment. Kamsky likes to play these risky lines but after his 12th move he is objectively lost. Mamedyarov nearly ruined his position by trying to ‘Blitz’ Kamsky, playing quickly in the latter’s time pressure and Kamsky hit back with a nice tactic but then his time ran out with two moves to make.> http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/eve...

Just to confirm as I was watching this game 'live' too (on both the official MTel website and ICC). Shaki blitzed out his final moves against Gata (he moved instantaneously). Here is the video in question (showing the 1st round game when Gata was about to play 15... Qg3+ while Shaki paced back and forth waiting)...

♕ Chessdom 'Mamedyarov marching' // http://videos.chessdom.com/mtel-mas...

Regards, - Mal

Besides, if you are a GM, that meens you know everything to know about chess?

< But others have said that he sacrificed and didn't get compensation> They also said Mamedyarov played poorly and that the final position is a draw.

<But look -- he eventually saw that he had a lost position and resigned. Does this mean he really doesn't have a fighting spirit?> He didn't do that. He played on and lost on time. That meens that he has a fighting spirit, or at least had it in that game.

Here is another sports analogy: What would you think of a marathon runner if he didn't quit the race though he didn't had a chance of winning it.

a. He is stupid, he should have saved his energies.
b. He is brave, winning isn't everything, at least he finished the race.

Again, I would go with (b) and you would go with (a) (according to your argument).

about sports with resignation, see my previous example on marathons.

<I do think it's right to resign when you are facing the losing end of a K+Q v K endgame because people do do that in chess.> Yes, K+Q vs K looks natural to resign. But Kamsky on the other hand had a lost knigt and not a lost queen. Everybody has their own diffrent limit.. I would resign also in a K+Q vs K ending, but not a piece down.

<Yes, when greats talk we should listen. But we shouldn't blindly believe anyone. Are you really claiming that it's possible for GMs to blunder as much as amateurs? Can that be backed up with any evidence, or just a quote from some unnamed source? This really is a ridiculous belief -- I can go through the games of some 800-rated players and find more blunders than I have fingers, and then I can go through some GM games with Fritz and find the same amount of outright blunders?> That is exactly what I said about interpreting the sentence literaly instead of understanding the spirit of the sentence.

Here is a little logical thought (in the spirit of Socrates):