Is it being impolite to resign when checkmate is eminent?  Am I depriving someone of a better victory?

Chess players resign; beginners play on and on and on with a silly grin on their face having their King chased about.

I'm shocked at the amount of strong players who do this carry on and on fiasco on this site. I don't know if it is an on-line fashion or an American fashion but there's no need for these comedy moves. Chess players resign, it's very simple.

tottaly agree

But even if they don't, is it right to insult them?  I was called an idiot and a fool recently for not resigning.  I was down one pawn.  Yeah, I probably was going to lose but it wasn't 100% certain, at least not in my eyes.

There are different definitions of etiquette.  Mine is that checkmate is the end of the game and a player has a right to play on until they are checkmated if they so wish without being cursed at or insulted.  Granted, the situation you describe, where a king gets chased around the board is a little ridiculous and an obvious resigning position, and one where I personally would resign (I usually go when I'm down a couple of minor pieces) but it should be down to the individiual how long they play on.  If the winning player doesn't like it, they can always start another game, or, being as good as they obviously are, close it out nice and quickly (in live chess for example).

Still, not sure why I'm even posting this, its been done to death already......

it is never right to insult someone.

I bring back the analogy of a golf match. If your opponent has a 2" putt, do you make him hole it out? What do you call your opponent when he does that to you? There are many known positions. Give your opponent some respect by assuming he knows how to win with a queen, rook, bishop, and three pawns against your king!

I realize there are basic endgames that players don't know. I was recently offered a draw when I had K&R vs K because he really didn't know it was a win. I taught him how. If you really aren't sure, do tell afterwards. But don't please don't hang on with just a king vs a king and pwan plus anything else. It's a 99.9% guaranteed win.

Unless K Vs K + rook pawn + "wrong" bishop. (i.e. bishop does not control queening square), that's a draw (if king can get to queening square).... which I'm certain you know xMenace.

xMenace is correct, additionally if you play on in lost positions you risk:

1. Looking like a muppet.

2. Having your request for a rematch declined in sharpish fashion.

When you're lost, then resign and show a little class.

i resign when i get a headache from the obviously lost position, but if my opponent has as nice mate i let him play on and finish me off.

However even worse than not reigning at all is playing all the way untilyour opponent has mate-in-one and then resigning: THAT I HATE!

Am I the only alien who actually enjoys chasing a lonely king arround while queening 3 pawns?

It really is apropriate to resign when you cannot hope to win due to material imbalances, etc. You want to avoid having your lone king chased around the board. If you're going to bring the game to a draw do so in a manner that is quick.

It's always impolite to insult anyone.

If you're in a winning position and your opponent won't resign, then you should simply checkmate them. It shouldn't take long if you're in an obviously winning position. I had a a king/queen vs a king/rook once and it's a long ending but very winnable.  I didn't mind that my opponent made me prove that I could do it.

I think people need to stop taking everything so personally. It's computer chess. Relax. Have fun.

This tendency of playing on occurs just as often in OTB games. I can see if playing on if there is a chance of a stalemate but hoping that your opponent is going to just blunder his pieces away is just wishful thinking.

I must add my "Oppinion".

I like to play out a game to the end. Why, mostly due to the fact that I play chess for fun, and to fill the time between important things, like Life. I, as most, do usually loose the "Obvious" lost position, but have manuvered myself into a stalemate enough that it has become one of my goals to always play for draw when I have gotten myself into a loosing position. But as I said this is just my "Oppinion".

And please no pointing out my poor spelling - I am a Warrior not a Scribe...

I agree with this, because it does depend on the capabilities of the player.  If I know the player is good and know what s/he's doing, then I resign a lost position because there is no reason to waste his/her time, but if the player is not very experienced then with my knowledge is probably a good exercise for both of us.

I agree with many of the points made here. I too believe it is relative. If I blunder a piece early against a weak opponent, I am going to play on; however, if I am down a pawn and it is "just a matter of technique" against a strong player, I'll resign. I find it insulting to your opponent, and in poor etiquette to force a game to continue when the result is clear. Just resign, and let's start a new game.

my 2 cents, 

I've played games where I deiced not to resign a losing position and the game ended in a stalemate...good for me..and the same has happened to me when i was in a winning position. My opponent decided not to resign and i made a bad move ending in stalemate..good for him...I am more willing to play the game till the end win or loose,  because i am trying to learn, but if i see that i am going to be mated with no hope of stalemate, i will resign. I would much rather resign a game than be checkmated or chased all over the board for the next 7 moves for nothing.

That's the only time it bothers me much, because I think most of the time it's done deliberately.  If you have some bizarre need to actually get mated every game, that's your business.  But if you forced me to play all the way down to the end and THEN resigned, then clearly you were just trying to waste my time out of spite.  Fortunately, it only happens with any player once.

Communication - "it's what your chat box is for".

I tend to say: "looks like it's all over (for me)" when I can see that my demise is inevitable.

Nothing wrong with resigning.  Why should the victorious player feel guilty about making you sit through those extra moves of pain when the result is clear?

That has happened to me a lot.  I am winning, and the crucial point is obvious on the board, I know it, he knows it, I know he knows.  But out of the feeling of not wanting to deprive me of those last glorious moves, he plays on.  Meanwhile I am thinking, "Poor guy, we both know it's over, he should just lay down the king..." and I feel a bit guilty over the next moves, like somehow I am rubbing it in.