Answers.Body: <p>Sure. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)#Resignation_in_won_positions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wiki: Resignation in won positions</a>. Some examples:</p>
  <ol>
  <li><p>Ignatz von Popiel vs. Georg Marco 1902</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>Gyorgy Negyesy vs. Karoly Honfi 1955</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>Raul Sanguineti vs. Miguel Najdorf</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>Victor Korchnoi vs. Geert van der Stricht</p>
  </li>
  </ol>
  <p>Even Karsten Müller in <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/35641/practical-endgame-resources-whats-next-after-josh-waitzkins-series-in-chess/36829#36829">h endgame series</a> talks about how GMs (or at least pros) have resigned in drawish(/winning?) positions.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-09T13:33:49.393Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-10-10T16:53:29.327Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-10-10T16:53:29.327Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.Body: <p>The official source that people link to when this question comes up is Tim Krabbe's excellent blog post from more than 20 years ago now: <a href="https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/resigntxt.htm" rel="noreferrer">The ultimate blunder</a>. He collected every single game in the database (pre 1999) where someone resigned in a winning position and explained the possible reasons behind the resignation for each game as well.</p>
  <p>Some very famous examples include:</p>
  <pre><code>[White &quot;Von Popiel&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Marco&quot;]
  [Title &quot;Von Popiel-Marco, Monte Carlo 1902&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>&quot;This is the earliest, the most famous, and still the clearest example of this blunder. Black resigned because he saw he was going to lose the Bd4. He could have won on the spot with 36...Bg1&quot;</p>
  <pre><code>[White &quot;Torre&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Parker&quot;]
  [Title &quot;Torre-Parker, New York 1924&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;2kr4/ppp3Pp/4RP1B/2r5/5P2/1P6/P2p3P/3K4 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>&quot;The Mexican grandmaster did not see what he could do against Rc1+ and promotion, and resigned. With 1.Rd6! he could have saved the day, and even have won: e.g. 1...Rxd6 2.g8Q+ Kd7 (Rd8 3.Qxd8+ and 4.f7) 3.Qf7+ Kc6 4.Qe8+ Kb6 5.Qe3 Kc6 6.Qxc5+&quot;</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-07T20:24:52.510Z
Answers.Text: I felt your answer was better, so I just merged my text into your answer. Hope you don't mind
Answers.UserDisplayName: NoseKnowsAll
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-07T20:36:47.633Z
Answers.Text: Awesome, thanks for the additional context!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-08T12:51:21.797Z
Answers.Text: I only know the rules of chess and can barely read the notation. How does Bg1 lead to victory in the first situation? That means moving the Bishop to the upper-left corner in the picture, right? It wouldn't threaten the white King, and it could be easily killed by either the white King or the white Rook without any consequences, no?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Vilx-
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-08T12:57:53.327Z
Answers.Text: @Vilx- If white takes bishop, then black grabs queen and should have enough material to win. If white doesn't take bishop (eg grabs undefended rook), Qxa2 is checkmate.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zizy Archer
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-08T13:01:13.880Z
Answers.Text: @ZizyArcher - Ahh, so it's not so much an instant victory as a much better situation that will likely lead to victory soon after. OK, thanks!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Vilx-
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-08T20:19:11.697Z
Answers.Text: 'Won on the spot' really implies a mate-in-one. I spent several confused minutes looking for it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brady Gilg
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-09T01:27:01.610Z
Answers.Text: Agreed, white takes the bishop with the king, then black takes the queen with the rook. Then presumablly white takes the rook with the bishop. Overall white is up a queen for a rook and a knight. That seems a long way from "won on the spot".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter Green
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-09T20:56:10.197Z
Answers.Text: @PeterGreen Not really: white wins the central pawn immediately (with a forced exchange of bishops, unless you want to lose the knight). After Bxe4 Bxe4 Qe4 you attack the Knight with tempo and after it is defended, Qc2 and a further pawn will be lost (Ra1 Qb2 and Rook must move). This whole sequence is straightforward to calculate - and should be obvious for a GM - you certainly don't need to be Stockfish. Then it's Q + 2P vs R + N which is about as "won" as GM games get.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mobeus Zoom
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-10T06:06:46.453Z
Answers.Text: Is it normal to show the board upside down like this?  The image in the linked blog shows white's king at the bottom  for the first game , so normal counting of coordinates like d4 works.  I found it confusing that the square 4th from the left and 4th from the bottom didn't hold a bishop when trying to match up the text with the board.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter Cordes
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-12-28T02:48:10.010Z
Answers.Text: @PeterCordes It's what happens when you put in the precise FEN unfortunately (the FEN includes an element for "which side it is to move", and if it's black to move then it puts the board upside down).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Allure
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-10-07T20:20:31.583Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-10-07T20:31:56.090Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-10-07T20:31:56.090Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Body: <p>We know that despite what is shown in the movies and such, most chess games don't end by a &quot;checkmate&quot; move and oftentimes one side realizes that they are losing and resigns before the end. Now this begs the question: Has there been any serious games in the history of chess that the resignation was itself a blunder? Meaning that, the person who resigned had a chance of winning that they missed to spot at the time.</p>
  <p>By serious game I mean a GM-level (or if there is none, a near-GM-level) match. To be more specific, let's exclude the timed games that the possibly-winning side has lost by timeout. Also there was some games that one side deliberately resigned due to some personal reasons. Those are also not the ones that I am looking for.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-07T20:19:54.913Z
Comments.Text: [Here](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/the-ultimate-blunder-unnecessary-resignation) you can find some examples.
Comments.UserDisplayName: emdio
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-07T21:10:03.900Z
Comments.Text: wiki: [Resignation in won positions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)#Resignation_in_won_positions)
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-09T00:06:18.827Z
Comments.Text: Shouldn't it be "the person who resigned had a chance of not losing"?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Acccumulation
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-09T13:30:54.230Z
Comments.Text: @Acccumulation OP's question then is not necessarily wrong but simply something stricter than your question?
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-10T15:20:56.843Z
Comments.Text: FYI 'begs the question' doesn't mean 'leads to the (follow-on) question ...'. Instead it means to assume or assert the answer to a more fundamental question without actually answering it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Keith Payne
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-10-10T17:13:12.467Z
Comments.Text: @KeithPayne I beg to differ! (based on [this](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-question))
Comments.UserDisplayName: polfosol
Tags: <history><blunder><famous-games><resigning>
Title: Have there been any blunders in resignation?
ThreadText: # Have there been any blunders in resignation?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-10-07)
  
  We know that despite what is shown in the movies and such, most chess games don't end by a "checkmate" move and oftentimes one side realizes that they are losing and resigns before the end. Now this begs the question: Has there been any serious games in the history of chess that the resignation was itself a blunder? Meaning that, the person who resigned had a chance of winning that they missed to spot at the time.
  
  By serious game I mean a GM-level (or if there is none, a near-GM-level) match. To be more specific, let's exclude the timed games that the possibly-winning side has lost by timeout. Also there was some games that one side deliberately resigned due to some personal reasons. Those are also not the ones that I am looking for.
  
  **Tags:** history, blunder, famous-games, resigning
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: [Here](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/the-ultimate-blunder-unnecessary-resignation) you can find some examples.  
  > **username_2**: wiki: [Resignation in won positions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)#Resignation_in_won_positions)  
  > **username_3**: Shouldn't it be "the person who resigned had a chance of not losing"?  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 OP's question then is not necessarily wrong but simply something stricter than your question?  
  > **username_4**: FYI 'begs the question' doesn't mean 'leads to the (follow-on) question ...'. Instead it means to assume or assert the answer to a more fundamental question without actually answering it.  
  > **username_0**: @username_4 I beg to differ! (based on [this](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-question))  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2021-10-07. Score: 21 | Accepted answer
  
  The official source that people link to when this question comes up is Tim Krabbe's excellent blog post from more than 20 years ago now: [The ultimate blunder](https://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/resigntxt.htm). He collected every single game in the database (pre 1999) where someone resigned in a winning position and explained the possible reasons behind the resignation for each game as well.
  
  Some very famous examples include:
  
  ```
  [White "Von Popiel"]
  [Black "Marco"]
  [Title "Von Popiel-Marco, Monte Carlo 1902"]
  [FEN "7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  "This is the earliest, the most famous, and still the clearest example of this blunder. Black resigned because he saw he was going to lose the Bd4. He could have won on the spot with 36...Bg1"
  
  ```
  [White "Torre"]
  [Black "Parker"]
  [Title "Torre-Parker, New York 1924"]
  [FEN "2kr4/ppp3Pp/4RP1B/2r5/5P2/1P6/P2p3P/3K4 w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  "The Mexican grandmaster did not see what he could do against Rc1+ and promotion, and resigned. With 1.Rd6! he could have saved the day, and even have won: e.g. 1...Rxd6 2.g8Q+ Kd7 (Rd8 3.Qxd8+ and 4.f7) 3.Qf7+ Kc6 4.Qe8+ Kb6 5.Qe3 Kc6 6.Qxc5+"
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: I felt your answer was better, so I just merged my text into your answer. Hope you don't mind  
  > **username_5**: Awesome, thanks for the additional context!  
  > **username_7**: I only know the rules of chess and can barely read the notation. How does Bg1 lead to victory in the first situation? That means moving the Bishop to the upper-left corner in the picture, right? It wouldn't threaten the white King, and it could be easily killed by either the white King or the white Rook without any consequences, no?  
  > **username_8**: @username_7- If white takes bishop, then black grabs queen and should have enough material to win. If white doesn't take bishop (eg grabs undefended rook), Qxa2 is checkmate.  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 - Ahh, so it's not so much an instant victory as a much better situation that will likely lead to victory soon after. OK, thanks!  
  > **username_9**: 'Won on the spot' really implies a mate-in-one. I spent several confused minutes looking for it.  
  > **username_10**: Agreed, white takes the bishop with the king, then black takes the queen with the rook. Then presumablly white takes the rook with the bishop. Overall white is up a queen for a rook and a knight. That seems a long way from "won on the spot".  
  > **username_11**: @username_10 Not really: white wins the central pawn immediately (with a forced exchange of bishops, unless you want to lose the knight). After Bxe4 Bxe4 Qe4 you attack the Knight with tempo and after it is defended, Qc2 and a further pawn will be lost (Ra1 Qb2 and Rook must move). This whole sequence is straightforward to calculate - and should be obvious for a GM - you certainly don't need to be Stockfish. Then it's Q + 2P vs R + N which is about as "won" as GM games get.  
  > **username_12**: Is it normal to show the board upside down like this?  The image in the linked blog shows white's king at the bottom  for the first game , so normal counting of coordinates like d4 works.  I found it confusing that the square 4th from the left and 4th from the bottom didn't hold a bishop when trying to match up the text with the board.  
  > **username_13**: @username_12 It's what happens when you put in the precise FEN unfortunately (the FEN includes an element for "which side it is to move", and if it's black to move then it puts the board upside down).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2021-10-09. Score: 3
  
  Sure. See [Wiki: Resignation in won positions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)#Resignation_in_won_positions). Some examples:
  
  1. Ignatz von Popiel vs. Georg Marco 1902
  2. Gyorgy Negyesy vs. Karoly Honfi 1955
  3. Raul Sanguineti vs. Miguel Najdorf
  4. Victor Korchnoi vs. Geert van der Stricht
  
  Even Karsten Müller in [h endgame series](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/35641/practical-endgame-resources-whats-next-after-josh-waitzkins-series-in-chess/36829#36829) talks about how GMs (or at least pros) have resigned in drawish(/winning?) positions.
  
  
  ---
  
  