why do some poeple never resiging in online chess?

seems to me that it's the person who is playing that has the right to decide to do whatever they want, so long as it's in the rules. There's too much name calling about nowadays.

Why do you keep saying that I never resign?  That's simply not true.

While I'm sure you're a much better chess player than I am, you're incredibly ignorant.  You think that the dynamic between two grandmasters is the same as the dynamic between two class players?  You might think it's all about respect, but it isn't.  Kasparov resigned to Deep Blue, was that out of respect?

Keep the personal insults coming though, I don't mind.  That seems to be all you have.

I don't think that it's a sign of respect as much as it is the recognition that the postion is lost, so why waste their time continuing. 

Exactly, and what is a foregone conclusion in a grandmaster game is not necessarily completely decided at the lower levels.  I've seen class players bungle up endgames before (god knows I have as well!), so why would a person resign if that possibility exists?

This isn't to say that a lone king has any chance against a couple of queens, but it's incredibly childish to refuse to checkmate someone just because you expect a resignation.

Here's some interesting reading, which includes several cases both of grandmasters refusing to resign and grandmasters resigning without showing any respect to the opponent.  But what do I know, I obviously know nothing about chess!  

http://www.chess.com/blog/billwall/sore-losers-in-chess

Plenty of childishness, for sure, which goes to show that being good in chess doesn't necessarily mean anything outside of chess.

Including amateurs.  Very few of my opponents play on in a lost position.  When one does, I just find the easiest way to checkmate them.  

I don't know what all the fuss is about.  Who cares if the game is played to checkmate.

Exactly!  People do lots of different things for lots of different reasons, including both resigning and not resigning.  There don't seem to be as many reasons for getting upset that an opponent won't resign, though.

I am one of those who hardly ever resign. And why? Because I want to practice end game, and because I beleive my opponnents, most of them low rated should practice the end game also.

I don't resign for 2 other reasons: 1: The game can end in stalemate. 2: You can still be lucky to win. I've had a game where I far under, I managed to try to put my opponnent in check, and the message was I checkmated this player in kind of surprise move for both of us. So fight till the end.

You never see a football team leave the field when their opposing team lead with 3-4 goals and 10 minutes left, do you? That is considered extremelig poor sportmanship, and subject to penalites.

The notorious chess.com Fair Play Policy (https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444922-fair-play-policy) says it is expected that "players will not stall to make opponents wait unnecessarily". It should be concluded that one is expected to resign in such cases or to continue making timely moves that lead to the inevitable loss. However without mind-reading skills or devices it is hard to tell as of why one is not moving any piece. It could be because of considering a 14-move combination for example. At the end there do exist objective "rules" that encourage resignation, but they have few applicable signigicance because their validity for any situation is very vague.

One can't make that conclusion at all.  It says not to "stall to make opponents wait unnecessarily."  This has nothing to do with resigning, it has to do with not making a move at all and making the opponent wait for you.  If a person is making their moves in a timely manner, they're violating neither the spirit nor letter of the Fair Play Policy.

Yes. And I've written about the rest of the cases, when they're not making moves in timely manner.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  I thought you were saying something about the policy expecting a resignation from someone who was losing.  That's what we were talking about before.

This sounds much more petty and ridiculous than not resigning a lost position.

This is what the Fair Play Policy implies should be done unless one makes timely moves. Generally there are 3 options that contain everything that can be done in a position where it's one's turn:

- make a timely move;

- not make a timely move (pretty much the opposite of the previous, provided one has the right to move);

- or resign (different from the previous two. As far as: 1) an ongoing game is necessary for making a (timely) move, 2) no (timely) move is allowed or expected after a resignation, and 3) a resignation terminates the game, a resignation is neither a timely move nor a lack thereof. Shortly, it has nothing to do with moves).

The Fair Play Policy states:

Thou shalt not stall to make your opponent wait unnecessarily!

As far as stalling = not making a timely move, this is equal to:

Thou shalt either make a timely move or resign in order not to make your opponent wait unnecessarily!

So far so good, but if one concludes (I don't agree with that, but it's possible for someone to assume it) that timely moves in a lost position inevitably lead to a loss which differs from resignation only in that that it makes your opponent wait unnecessarily, the Fair Play Policy says:

Thou shalt always resign in lost positions, (and here's the important part) if you would otherwise have as a single purpose to just waste your opponent's time!

The point being that chess.com can't read minds and can't say what the reason for not making a timely move ("stalling") is. It could be considering a 14-move variation, which is in no way against the policy, or (which often happens) hoping for an opponent's mistake or timeout. And hence it's impossible to claim that this "rule" is to be applied to a certain case. Which pretty much deprives it of any practical sense whatsoever, and complaints against would-be-stalling - of any grounds.

I think it's safe to say that at lower levels, one can't conclude that at all. That seems to be what some people are assuming, though, which seems to be where a lot of the argument is coming from.

Personally, I think that's beside the point, a resignation is something someone does when they don't see any point in playing out the endgame, not something that is owed to someone out of "respect."

{ Iluvsmetuna wrote:

I don't know about respect needing to be earned. That can happen but you can also get back what you throw out, so if you respect people, you might get it in return. Never a guarantee of course.

Hope that's not too philosophical. }

[ Captain_Coconut responded:

There's respect for someone's ability, and there's respect for the person.  It seems that some people here don't get the distinction.

As long as the likelihood exists that someone could blunder away a win (e.g., by stalemate), they don't deserve a resignation, and they haven't earned that first kind of respect.  It has nothing to do with the second kind of respect. ]

Tuna replied:

This is a viewpoint.

There are horses for courses.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and entitled to be taken to task for it.

Try not to confuse opinions with universal constants.

The mentality of "if there is not a law saying I have to, then I won't" is quite prevalant on the internet because there's no social pressure on the player whatsoever.  That's really the short answer to the OPs question.

A player has every right to play out the position until mate.  Of course, the opponent has every right to refuse a rematch, or refuse to analyse the game afterwards.  But is that really such a big deal? On the internet, you can get a game in 30 seconds.  Plenty of fish in the sea, this particular opponent is not important.  Post-mortem analysis with the opponent? Who cares what the opponent thinks, we have Houdini to tell us which moves were bad and how we could have improved our score.  Could have played h4 here to go up to +0.80, Could have played Nb3 here to stay at -0.2 instead of going to -0.5.  Ideas are not really important in chess.  So what if this opponent thinks poorly of you, if you care what anybody thinks of you on the internet you just need to "get a thicker skin."

I didn't think I was.  In fact, that's what I'm arguing against.

Cool! Then let's rip up this joint together!

The two are mutually inclusive. For example, If someone has a rating clearly above 1000, and has shown that they are worth this over the course of a game then resigning in a Q + K vs K game covers both points. Yet, I find I am often forced to play out this and any number of ridiculously "won" positions.