Again, there is no rule that says that you must resign when you are a queen down.  If you don't like the fact that there is no such rule, then find another game to play that has rules that you can live with.  I have played many games a queen down and I've won!!!  The opponent becomes overconfident and careless and ends up blundering!  Or the opponent plays and toys with me and deliberately promotes enough pawns to have 2 or 3 queens.  This usually results in a stalemate!!!  Then there are the players who resign as soon as they are bishop down or a rook down.  Do you approve of that?  There are those who resign when they have some perceived positional disadvantage.  Is that OK?  There are those who resign so often that they rarely ever get to play an endgame!  When they do get into an endgame, they have so little endgame experience that they invariabley lose!  Let's be happy that these players are playing by the rules and not using computers, friends, manipulating chessmen on a chessboard, or reading opening manuals to help them play.

ya know....as i said you learn from your mistakes,then you dont repeat them,hopefully playing on is why most people will look at a game and say why did he or she give ? it was because they knew it would be a what...''excercise in futility'' and that not what you learn from...if you question this just look at the higher levels they resign, no big deal they go over the game find where they fix it or dump it, and the world is a better place

How much any person would rather move on to another game depends on the person, and I doubt overgeneralizing this point would serve our purpose here.  But there are indeed valuable lessons to be learned in playing out a position until the end - or at least, until the end is near (maybe you feel differently about this point?).

For one, you sharpen your skills in defending against mating attacks.  The importance of practicing this skill cannot be overstated!  In English we make no distinction between a game that is "won" and a game that is over with one player having won.  The former means that a player will be able to win the game with perfect play, but also that it isn't over yet: that is, the former assumes perfect play, while the latter has no need for this assumption.  The distinction between the two cases is drawn by a successful defense against an attack that leads to a draw.

In addition, as the course of the game plods inexorably toward your king's demise, you will no doubt gain a clearer understanding of precisely where and how you went wrong and ended up bleeding precious rating points.  I said earlier that I always resign when I can no longer entertain any hope of fighting to a draw; this condition is equivalent to the condition of understanding exactly why I am going to lose.  I figure, as long as I'm already going to lose, studying the finer details of the experience won't hurt anybody; I understand better, and my opponent still wins (assuming adequate play, which, in my book, is a prerequisite for taking home the full point!).

So it is in the spirit of these lessons, which I admit to a degree of delight in learning on the (all-too-frequent) occasions I find myself on the losing side of hard-fought positions, that offer you the following challenge: I challenge you to lose a game either by checkmate or by resignation when your opponent can force mate, and then come back and state that you did not learn anything from the experience about your defense or the mistakes you made in the course of the game.  If you can do this, you have my official permission to keep complaining about all the opponents who face you and do the same thing.  Otherwise, all you can do is chill out or learn to choose your opponents more carefully!  What do you say? =)

well my feeling is that  at one time chess had no time constraints,so you had to sit thru alot and wait till your opponent made his moves, then they saw the need to add in the clock or something to keep the game moving. all i am saying is you learn nothing from playing a hopelssly lost position till the end,you learn how you lost but from then on, whats the point, if you want your game to get better you learn from your mistakes...and that is all,i expected some of the people newer to the game to view it as okay but if you ask overall they would rather get on to another game.

So funny because i just read that twigg post. Man just keep playing. Worst case scenario you learn a bit about tactics. Best case scenario your oponent blunders in a case of over confidence and or indiference for a game "in the bag".

Manny, calm down, big guy.  It's hard to read what you write, with all the superfluous punctuation and capitalization.  What, are you afraid we won't be able to hear you properly?

I see you've gone to the trouble of discovering my rating.  It seems you haven't gone to the trouble of looking at any of my games.  In any serious game with a comparably rated opponent, I will always resign when the situation is too imbalanced for me to entertain any hope of fighting to a draw.  I do this as a tribute to the strength of my opponent's play.  Of course, I'm often on the other side of the situation too, being forced to mate someone who just won't give up.  It's not a big deal.  You just do it.

My point is that anybody who decides to see it through to the bitter end is entirely within their rights to do so, and if you're up against them, you have no choice but to deliver mate.  Failing to do this indicates that you aren't good enough to deserve the win.

Win or lose, patience shows maturity and good sportsmanship.  And taking your opponents' actions personally shows bad sportsmanship and immaturity, win or lose.

wait a minute...some person with a rating of 2000plus said it was okay 2 go on??? you have 2 b joking, it is actually more sportsman like to resign, if you have been playing at your rank you would have seen this in a hundred games....you would never see a rated player go on after a blunder unless the person he is playing against is that bad [or just didnot have anything 2 do]......and your rank[?????!] YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT....

well i see 4 d most part i m alone n this....i guess you would have 2 say,okay if ur playing a person that you lose a queen 2  or or another piece and you come back and win.....hmmmm how can i put this politely....hmmm on 2nd thought your play on....

Bravo, Twigg.  One player blundering away a piece doesn't make it impossible for the other to blunder away a bigger piece later!  This game is called the "Queen's Game" in Chinese, but a lost queen by herself doesn't win or lose it - it's all about the king.

Funny story: I just posted a blog illustrating the counter-point. I blundered away my queen, sucked it up, played improved chess and won. It has a lot to do with the (perceived) quality of your opponent: If you're a GM and you blunder away your queen to a chimp, odds are you'll still come out ahead.

Defending against mating attacks is an important skill to practice.

And then there are plenty of people who just won't resign.  Suck it up and checkmate them.  It might be inconvenient for those of us who take our games on this site too seriously, but the bottom line is that if you can't prove your position is winning, then you don't deserve their points.

Spartans never give in!

iu can see what you mean , but its phrased a little wrong .. if im done for im gonna quit , but sometimes position could be better than opponents ... but the worst case scenario i had of this was a guy who had a king ..... while i had a king and 6 pawns and rook.. i did type in the side box "what are you waiting for ? 7th cavalry !!

of course none of this applies for the most part 2 blitz ,different set of circumstances and its a smaller amount of time...unless  nature is  calling and your pretty much on your own there as the other person would not have knowledge of this....