deleted

Hell no. Why waste time, you dont HAVE to accept a draw, and why do you care if they resign? the only problem is otb it saves a lot of time.

Then you might see tournament players losing on purpose in order to avoid 200+ move games lasting several days with multiple adjournments. All the chess public would learn is that chess can be a very, very boring game.

I care because I was looking forward to a match and they just refused to play basically

You bring up an interesting point and in this situation, you'd be completely right, although I haven't looked at the game myself, to suggest eliminating draws. Resignation I disagree, unless its a clear material disadvantage with no compensation or a forced line, grandmasters tend to play out, usually at least to open lines for counterplay. But you're forgetting situations where games are drawn by book definitions like king and pawn endgames or simply clearly even positions with little pieces left on the board. I've at times wondered why players just draw in the middle of some still interesting games, but it is not as common and I think draws and resignations are actually more important to keeping the game interesting for observers than necessary to explain a couple forced lines.

if you have a bad day you don't have to play, making rules that force you to play to the end is just inhumane, and very very wrong in nature, sometimes a game can be like mental torture, forcing a player to play to the end is bordering with neglecting his rights as a human, well, i might seem a bit harsh, but i belive that the players must have some effect on the duration of the game if they please, and should not be forced to paly to the end.

I agree that draws by agreement can be a problem. Just look at the amount of collusion amongst Soviet players in the past. And, like you said, perhaps the chess world doesn't benefit from top players drawing perfectly playable games with only thirty moves.

However, these top grandmasters are professionals -- at least to some extent. They must have a valid reason choosing not to continue, and, since it is draw by agreement they both must agree that it is not worth playing. Would the chess world benefit by new rules forcing two players (both of whom mutually agree they don't want to play a position) to actually play it? Would they play their best chess?

No, no, and more no. Draws are a huge part of chess, and resignation is jsut a way to end a game you know is lost.

Thank you for your reaction. In case where there is a draw by book definitions: won't top players arrive  quickly at repeating moves and then there is still a draw.

I think the commentator in Linares was explaining that in some tournaments they bring another GM to the board who can decide to play on or not. (My Spanish is far from perfect but I think I understood his point) I think in this case it was a tournament decision of the two players. Carlsen not wanting to loose and Anand happy with the draw because he had basically nothing to win only the embarassment of loosing. So this draw I think had nothing to do with the position on the board but with other considerations which killed a possibly exciting game.

I offer a draw when perpetual check is inevitable and I'm in a losing position. There's no reason to continue.

I don't like to resign, but I wouldn't force people to keep playing.

As for draws, I think that if the players want to call it even, they should be allowed to do so. It's a kind of respect.

Draws are OK but a lot of people resign way too easily. Chess is a battle, why not go down fighting. If you are losing on pieces your opponent  can still make a mistake, anyone can.

I think that in some professional tournaments a draw allows both players to finish in  a guaranteed prize-winning position, say 1st and 3rd, and they will both take it.

I don't resign until I can't avoid mate, or until I get to a position where I have no chance of winning regardless of opponent ranking.  I don't draw much unless I need to, and then it's usually draw by repetition.

Are you crazy? They SHOULDN'T REMOVE THEM, THEY ARE VERY USEFUL!

It is not as if removing resignation would change the game. The losing player would just leave the hall, get a drink and lose on time. Since the loser is going to the bar anyway the winner can follow him to prevent him returning unnoticed. Somehow having arbiters watch a board that both players have obviously abandoned is subtly embarrassing.

I believe draws should only be offered when a player does not suffcient force left on the board to effect checkmate. Resignation's have to stay as do stalemates.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this but it may come off that way and I apologize.

The response above very clearly states that the two competitors should be forced to continue to play because you want to see them do it.  However, performing for your enjoyment is clearly not why the two were competing.

They met like gentlemen.  Challenged each others' wits.  And decided to leave each others' honor in tact by drawing.  Draws are very personal decisions in my opinion.

I'd ask you to consider this game: http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=8482566

I had a very nice conversation with my opponent as the game went on.  We talked of a draw early on and argued whether or not it was a good option for me.  We decided to play on and draw at the end.  I now have a person added to my friends list because a draw option exists and we know each other to be honorable players.  Based on that alone I'd prefer to have the option of a draw rather than reduce the number of potential outcomes from a game.

when im playing chess its up to ME what i do,its my game, if i cant win i will resign,i played a chap last week and had him in a 5 move mate,he must of been drunk as he had a 1600+ rating, he didnt resign,he waited 3 days and then made the 'dead' move that stopped nothing? that is bad manners in my book,why do that? but that was his choice,id of resigned and licked my wounds. i do play to the death but if im dead, i die !

I personally think that it is the person who's resigning or accepting a draw that is at fault.  They should be able to recognize the fact that further play may lead to a better position and take a chance.  A quote from Fired Up:  you have to risk it to get the biscuit.