Answers.Body: <p>They may as well try, since Q vs R is extremely difficult to win (even disregarding skewer tactics). The example of RB vs R is a great similar example, as it is a theoretical draw, but <strong>extraordinarily</strong> difficult to draw. There are numerous examples of top grandmasters being unable to convert Q vs R. As to a computer vs human- this was tested in 1978 in a special match between Belle (computer program, had the tablebase so it would play perfectly), and GM Walter Browne. Two positions were played, both with a win in 31 moves. He was unable to convert one but won the other (although barely avoiding the 50 move rule)</p>
  <p>Example 1 - <a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1210725" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gelfand-Svidler</a> (two of the greatest players of their time, admittedly a rapid game. Black was pushing but Gelfand held.)</p>
  <p>Example 2 - <a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1442203" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Morozevich-Jakovenko</a> (Morozevich was a great player, but Jakovenko not so much. Morozevich was pushing, but Jakovenko held with what is known as a rambling rook idea, where a rook is sacrificed and keeps checking so either perpetual check occurs, or the king takes the rook leading to stalemate)</p>
  <p>To add more to this- it's quite possible that the side with the queen is in time trouble, which heightens the difficulty of breaking through.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-20T22:02:26.860Z
Answers.Text: Note that the tablebase is playing the move that resists the most, not the move that makes it the hardest, so in practice it could even be more difficult
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-27T14:59:05.487Z
Answers.Text: Eh, id argue that often they'd be the same, but I can certainly see the possibility.
  
  To make it clear as what you mean by hardest and resists:
  A tablebase will play the move, that assuming perfect play from both sides, will lead to mate (or conversion into a winning endgame, in this case, winning the rook) in the most (or least, if it's pressing) number of moves. 
  Making it hardest for a human player is subtly different from this.
Answers.UserDisplayName: pulsar512b
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-01-03T23:07:46.447Z
Answers.Text: "not so much" - huh? Jakovenko was ranked number 5 in the world at his peak rating.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kostya_I
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-08-20T19:48:19.923Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-08-20T19:48:19.923Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: pulsar512b
Body: <p>In classical play, do GMs tend to resign in endgames like king+queen vs king+rook where the game can be won by the side with more material in under 50 moves, but only with good play? (I understand queen vs rook is a win in 31 in worst case, barring any immediate captures/checks which make it a draw. A computer can likely draw it out to 50 moves against a human, but another human might not.)</p>
  <p>Queen vs rook isn't the only example - think of any pawnless endgame where the fastest forced mate is between 20 and 50 moves long.</p>
  <p>On one hand I could see that it might be insulting to continue to play on with such a difference in material, where your opponent will clearly not fall for any skewer tactics and the endgame will be very long and very boring, but on the other hand I see the pragmatism in continuing play as long as there is a non-trivial chance of a draw.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-20T19:34:14.077Z
Comments.Text: If there are tricks, they will play. Just like RB vs R endgames are a draw, but actually very often end unpeacefully. Q vs R most also will try. The worst that can happen happens immediately if you resign.
Comments.UserDisplayName: B.Swan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-08-20T22:01:24.583Z
Comments.Text: They will fight while there's hope. If they know a computer can defend it against a human, they will also try themselves
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Tags: <rook-endgame><resigning><queen-endgame>
Title: GMs resigning in theoretically lost endgames
ThreadText: # GMs resigning in theoretically lost endgames
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-20)
  
  In classical play, do GMs tend to resign in endgames like king+queen vs king+rook where the game can be won by the side with more material in under 50 moves, but only with good play? (I understand queen vs rook is a win in 31 in worst case, barring any immediate captures/checks which make it a draw. A computer can likely draw it out to 50 moves against a human, but another human might not.)
  
  Queen vs rook isn't the only example - think of any pawnless endgame where the fastest forced mate is between 20 and 50 moves long.
  
  On one hand I could see that it might be insulting to continue to play on with such a difference in material, where your opponent will clearly not fall for any skewer tactics and the endgame will be very long and very boring, but on the other hand I see the pragmatism in continuing play as long as there is a non-trivial chance of a draw.
  
  **Tags:** rook-endgame, resigning, queen-endgame
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: If there are tricks, they will play. Just like RB vs R endgames are a draw, but actually very often end unpeacefully. Q vs R most also will try. The worst that can happen happens immediately if you resign.  
  > **username_2**: They will fight while there's hope. If they know a computer can defend it against a human, they will also try themselves  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2020-08-20. Score: 4 | Accepted answer
  
  They may as well try, since Q vs R is extremely difficult to win (even disregarding skewer tactics). The example of RB vs R is a great similar example, as it is a theoretical draw, but **extraordinarily** difficult to draw. There are numerous examples of top grandmasters being unable to convert Q vs R. As to a computer vs human- this was tested in 1978 in a special match between Belle (computer program, had the tablebase so it would play perfectly), and GM Walter Browne. Two positions were played, both with a win in 31 moves. He was unable to convert one but won the other (although barely avoiding the 50 move rule)
  
  Example 1 - [Gelfand-Svidler](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1210725) (two of the greatest players of their time, admittedly a rapid game. Black was pushing but Gelfand held.)
  
  Example 2 - [Morozevich-Jakovenko](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1442203) (Morozevich was a great player, but Jakovenko not so much. Morozevich was pushing, but Jakovenko held with what is known as a rambling rook idea, where a rook is sacrificed and keeps checking so either perpetual check occurs, or the king takes the rook leading to stalemate)
  
  To add more to this- it's quite possible that the side with the queen is in time trouble, which heightens the difficulty of breaking through.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Note that the tablebase is playing the move that resists the most, not the move that makes it the hardest, so in practice it could even be more difficult  
  > **username_3**: Eh, id argue that often they'd be the same, but I can certainly see the possibility.  To make it clear as what you mean by hardest and resists: A tablebase will play the move, that assuming perfect play from both sides, will lead to mate (or conversion into a winning endgame, in this case, winning the rook) in the most (or least, if it's pressing) number of moves.  Making it hardest for a human player is subtly different from this.  
  > **username_4**: "not so much" - huh? Jakovenko was ranked number 5 in the world at his peak rating.  
  
  ---
  
  