[COMMENT DELETED]

I think it's okay only at begginer's level (like mine) - even if I'm obviously losing, I'm not going to resign because I want to learn by watching how it's being done. Also there is a slight hope for a stalemate if the impatient opponent loses concentration.

 I prefer the Old Benoni.

Be the teacher.

I am sure there have been times in my playing career that I have been on the giving and receiving end of resignations (or checkmates) that can not be categorized as premature.

While at times I feel frustrated, I try and rise above the emotion and act with class.

I really, really like Ellbert's response: "Be the teacher."

Bravo! 

The ability to resign is to benefit the person who is losing. If someone really wants to be tortured before they are killed, so be it.  Don't get frustrated, just finish them off as efficiently as you can.

Unfortunately you're just going to have to put up with it! I'm going through the same thing on Chessworld

I don't really like when the other player resigns. It's much more gratifying to win by checkmate than to win by them resigning or their time running out.

Those are the rules of the game. Those are the conditions of play. If your opponent has lost then prove it on the board. These games take time. Look for the quickest possible way to end it. Your opponent could have a multitude of reasons for playing on. I'm sure you are a good player but be careful! I've won games like you are describing just because I kept playing. The hardest game to win is the won game.

Whatever frustration you feel at your hapless opponent's decision not to resign, imagine the frustration of others at seeing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over the exact same thread, which leads to the exact same discussion back and forth.

If you want to know what the chessworld is going to do about this sort of vile, thoughtless oppenent, just read any of the numerous threads on this topic, which have beaten this horse until there's not even any flesh left on its dead carcass. 

I often play on when I'm 20 points ahead (or, more usually, 20 points behind) - simply because I find the conversation so absorbing.

If chess.com wanted to encourage the behaviour of not playing on in 'hopeless' situations, they could reward the early-resigner with 'courtesy' points (not rating points) when the system detects that this has occurred.

Duffer1965 wrote:

Whatever frustration you feel at your hapless opponent's decision not to resign, imagine the frustration of others at seeing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over the exact same thread, which leads to the exact same discussion back and forth.

---

And imagine the further frustration of others reading quotes of those who are frustrated about issues that we're alll seeing over, & over, & over, & over, & over, & over. hehe

I see when you got beaten by Neurionb you were very rude too him in your message. Perhaps your opponent was scared of what would happen if he won/lost, so was delaying the inevitable till his courage had been fortified.

 I have a game now that is a sure win that may run maybe another 10 moves or so.

There are several possible reason for going on:

1. perhaps your opponent was not convinced of your ability to win & so is waiting 4 u to slip up. lol

2. its a tactical move... the opponents has hundred more games ongoing and wants to concede at the opportune time to take advantage of the point system.

3. wants to tick u off

How would it be if we had a set of protocols or conventions that supplemented the rules of chess? It could be called the Polite Protocol - (although we should ask other developers of Polite Protocols if they mind us using that name) or the Quick End Convention.

You could tick a box at the start of the game to indicate that you would abide by the QEC e.g. automatically resigning when more than 20 points behind - unless there are clear game-winning reasons for not doing so.

 

Taking advantage of the point system is the most likely reason.  If you are climbing, he'll lose less points when he loses to you at a later date.

forgive me, but I'm one of these people who do not resign. The reason being is that I'm not a person who likes to back away from something even if I'm on the losing end. I also like to see just how long I can stay alive... I do not mean to annoy the other person, nor any of these other reasons you've brought up. and most the times there is a conversation going on in the chat box that I know will be gone when I lose, so it saves the conversation for awhile. I know I'm a weak player, which I try to warn my opponent before hand.

Please change "refuse to resign" to "continue to play on", otherwise it sounds like you are asking or expecting him to resign.

You know, I've been on both sides of this fence. On the one hand, I've been in situations where I had an apparent advantage and lost the game. I've also been in situations where I was down and my opponent blundered (this actually happened to me while I played a master in a blitz game). So I understand that dilemma from both perspectives. But there's one thing that helps me not to be so angry when I'm in a situation where I'm 'clearly' winning, yet my opponent won't resign.

It is amazing the things we chess players forget as we grow in the game of chess. Some 30 years ago I learned that the object of a chess game is to CHECKMATE your opponent's king. The reality that I may have won a piece or two is good, but that's not the ultimate objective. So I go into every game with the objective of checkmating my opponent's king. And I assume that this is also my opponent's objective in every game. This has helped me not to be so frustrated.