If a friend and a much higher rated player and he is both.  Did not take your Queen after a blunder in order to just keep game going would you resign?  Yes it is a rated game.

i may play for a bit to see if there was some tactic that i didn't see.  but i think resignation is reasonable.  be sure to tell your friend that you want them to play their best and not go easy on you. 

similiarly, i once blundered against my dad and made a chat comment imediately with "oops" or something and he offered to play a few fake moves to achieve "Takeback".  i told him to take her and lost in two moves.  much more fun that way. 

No. He probably figures you'll trip up again later. I'd accept the lifelife and soldier on.

               I would like to resign as the real fun of the game lies in overcoming the obstacles,though it may lead to at times loosing of the game ! we always learn from such blunders & remember them in future,especially when we have paid a prize in terms of a heavy piece !

After some thought I resigned the game.  No way to win.   If by some n\miracle I did win I lost any way.  He is a good guy and I rechallenged and he accepted.  I think you should always give your best game.  This will be a blundr I will always remember

I agree.  It may have been good intentions and all, but I don't know many people who would want anything less than the best from their opponent.

Of course, sometimes there is a reason not to take material that seems free -- but when it's a queen the reason will likely not be hard to figure out.  (I declined a poison pawn once and my opponent commented after the game I'd gone easy on him, evidently he didn't realize it was poison :)

I consider your higher rated opponent's decision - NOT to take your blundered queen - a valid stroke for levelling-the-playing-field.

That reminds of  the guy who advocated handicaps in chess like they exist in golf. Interesting idea.

The whole world does not have to be handicaped.  One great thing about Chess is always a level playing field

Indeed.

However, the question remains ... "If a friend and a much higher rated player and he is both.  Did not take your Queen after a blunder in order to just keep game going would you resign?  Yes it is a rated game."

which is more important: the playing experience (and acknowledging your's friend's chivalry in not striking a man when he is down), or the purity of the rating calculation?

Why do we have leagues in every professional sport?

I agree!  No one is helped by letting them win.  Teach them or give them advice, but don't let them win.  As the man in the commercial says, "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!"  When I play anyone with a higher rating than I have, I play to win, but if I learned he let me win that would be a disappointment.  

The purpose of leagues is to make a game fairer by ensuring that people play against teams of similar ability.

In that case, we organise things slightly differently here in the UK. We don't generally have multimillion pound football clubs playing pub teams - even if they happen to be conveniently colocated in the same town.

"The English football league system, also known as the football pyramid, is a series of interconnected leagues for club football in England (although for historical, economic and financial reasons six Welsh clubs also compete). The system has a hierarchical format with promotion and relegation between leagues at different levels, allowing even the smallest club the possibility of ultimately rising to the very top of the system. There are more than 140 leagues, containing more than 480 divisions.^[1] The exact number of clubs varies from year to year as clubs join and leave leagues or fold altogether, but an estimated average of 15 clubs per division implies that more than 7,000 clubs are members of a league in the English football league system."

My point stands: virtually every activity is stratified by ability. It's not much fun for beginners to play experts - and even less fun for experts to play beginners - UNLESS the playing field has been levelled.

If I win, great...but if I lose...I don't want any charity. I don't like the handicap system in golf and wouldn't want a similar system in chess.

unless you just like playing with your friend. 

yes. even if i went on to win id still feel dead inside.

good thing you're sacking pieces now and learning lessons instead of when your life actually depends on it

Was that more or less a generic moral?

Though you'd presumably feel even worse (perhaps dead inside and outside) if you went on to lose?