I firmly believe that only the two people playing a game can decide its outcome. I will resign a game that I feel is totally lost, but I would be vehemently against someone else telling me that my game was lost and that I should give up. And I completely understand Erik's position .. they should never implement anything like that.
I think that people forget that this is correspondence-style chess that we're talking about. It seems to me that what these less-than-patient people want are Live Chess tournaments.. something where you know that the game is not going to take longer than a set amount of time. I have no idea if this is something being worked on or intended to be worked on, but maybe that option could help cut down on the frustration.
Alternatively, how about something easier to implement? Could we have deadlines for rounds? Could a TD specify that each round be completed by a certain date? The question would be what to do about games still in progress at the deadline.
Or maybe the simplest thing would be to allow the next round of a tournament to begin as long as there aren't games still in progress that would change the outcome of the round.
Most of all, I think people just need to relax. If somebody is doing you wrong over the board, prove that you've got what it takes to put them away. If it's not your game, then stay out of it and let the game take its course.
The game is not over until the opponent is checkmated. Who are you to decide that a player is infallible and wont stalemate, or even lose to the one behind in material?
What you are proposing to do is change the rules of chess, which is something I vigorously disagree with.
AND that is the end of it. I have played many a game with a stubborn loser on this site and though it bothers me it is their right to play out a position to a mate.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.