Yes, the dynamic analysis in the minds of the OTB players is sort of like momentum. Usually, it works in their favor, relative to us puzzle solvers who must start from a stand-still position.

The lights went off and candles were arranged on each table...it was dusk and quite dark

the game went like this

White: XXXXX
Black: zooter

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 d6??

Because of the shadows, I didn't realize that my bishop was under attack and was almost ready to resign and go home to rest when my opponent incredibly played

6.0-0??

allowing me to escape. He went on to win though (he is rated 1850+ and I'm still unrated) though this shows that sometimes we just don't think too well....

SPORT: That is why I NEVER resign. Do the Yankees resign in the 8th inning when they are losing 15-0? NO. In ANY other sport, it is considered rude and bad sportsmanship to give up, EXCEPT in chess. I have never been able to explain this.

SPORT: Would Mike Tyson rather box against Holyfield or Duran? That is why I would rather lose 5,000 games in a row to a GM, than win 1 game against someone my own strength or lower.

SPORT: Ask Kramnik, when he sits down against Anand, what is your goal sir? To have fun?

Do you play a SPORT or a GAME?

No, because they can make 16 points in one inning, for as much as my baseball knowledge goes...

<That is why I NEVER resign.>

But in chess, the likelihood that someone gives away as low as a piece advantage, as in the opening blunder zooter posted, are very slim. If you are down a Queen and Rook, on the other hand, playing seems more of a torture than a game to win.

well, I disagree, they would not give up, resign, even if they could. This comment is quite insulting to baseball players in my opinion.

I guess when to resign is up to each player to decide. In this case two players rated ~2500 both miss a mate in 2. Had black resigned before making move 22, he would have missed out on the rest of the game. Had he won, it would have been more evidence of my opinion. He didnt win, but the main thing is that he COULD have won the game, because the game is quite even after move 23. That is why I made the comment about resigning.

On the other hand, black had better moves than 22...Ra7, so the issue is somewhat more difficult to tease out this position.

<TheN: If you are down a Queen and Rook, on the other hand, playing seems more of a torture than a game to win>

I dont ever find myself down a rook and queen, so I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking about resigning games where the player has a "perceived" disadvantage. Many times here a player might be down a knight, but be up a pawn or 2 [perhaps one of the pawns is passed] and resign, and not one post says....'why did the player resign'?

In most major sports, "victory" is defined as having the best result at a particular point in time, whether one hour on the clock or 27 outs.

Chess is not like that. Victory is defined as achieving a particular result--checkmating the opponent's king. Being ahead on material after one hour or 27 moves is irrelevant.

That's why baseball players can't "quit" early; they have to play 27 otus, no matter what. Since chess does not have that kind of fixed structure, a player is allowed to concede inevitable defeat. Whether they should is a different question, but it cannot be compared to another sport where playing a certain length of time is required.

Myself, I'm generally a quick resigner, simply because I find playing out lost games to be distasteful and I've got btter things to do with my time. However, the "never resign" philosophy is valid--though I get aggravated with guys who spend five minutes thinking about their only legal move before checkmate.

Moody,D (1706) - (1417) [D00]
U.S. Open Chicago, Ill. (4), 01.08.1979

<1.Nc3 Nf6 2.d4 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nxe4 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Bg5 h6 0-1>

(1696) - Moody,D (2049) [D02]
U.S. Open St. Paul, Minn. (7), 15.08.1982

<1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Bg4 3.Ne5 Bh5 4.c4 e6 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxb7 Qxd4 7.Nc6 1-0>

The funny thing is that both times I was paired against and defeated the same player in the next round. After this, I would scan the wall charts at each U.S. Open I attended, and if he hadn't shown up I knew I wouldn't lose another game in seven moves.

I realize the point you are trying to make.

I guess if you and I ever play I will just HAVE to bring my queen out and sac it on move 4, then play on for 45 more moves whilst you clench and unclench your fists....then I resign one move away from mate.

In fact, this all started for me last year when I made a comment on Pert vs Ward 2005. I asked why would a player resign in this position, in fact, a player might in fact DESIRE this exact position; all play could have been considered a questionable Tal-like sacrifice. In other words, had Tal played this position, everyone would have been gushing about what a brilliant sacrifice was made.