asked to resign?

Here it is so we can stop making threads about resigning politeness etc....

Playing out a game is fine, dragging out a game (using max time in a completely lost position) is NOT fine.

My suggestion on this is as follows-

1. If it is a isolated game, just resign the game or offer draw so you don't have to stress about your opponent dragging you through the time wasting. (It's only a game, and your precious rating points don't equal your chess skill, so don't stress em.) Is this fair to the winning side, of course not. Is it a lot less stressful than getting mad at your misguided opponent, yes it certainly is.

2. If it is a tourney game, we really should have tournament arbiters who can Force Resign games that are obviously and objectively lost. If the losing side insists the game has potential, Chess.com could provide them with a free positional analysis that shows the closing lines so that they can learn why the position is lost (since they don't happen to be exhibiting knowledge of it being lost since they are dragging it out). Repeat offenders should be tourney banned for unsportsmanlike conduct. It should stand to reason that one player should not be allowed to disrupt the enjoyment of the site by the masses.

you are right.  it was very rude.  resign when you would like to. 

Hmm...

It's rude both ways to me. I would not ask someone to resign, but I also do not appreciate when people play in obviously lost positions hoping for a blunder or (if internet is concerned) a disconnect. Blitz is different though, and a whole new set of etiquette applies there.

Someone said it is rude to not resign when the mate is clear. I don't think it is though. Often times I have let my opponent mate me, not because I have missed the mate or I wanted to be rude but because I like the combination, and it looks much more beautiful to have the game complete.

If I feel I can't learn anything by continuing a lost game, I resign and move on.

At the risk of sounding rude myself, my response would be that you should realize that some people are curteous and some are not - you found someone who is not. You have the right to play out your game. If you want to play it out, ignore the person and don't play them again. If you don't want to play it out, resign and don't play them again. Do you see the common denominator there? I've had a great time building up a group of kind, enthusiastic and "good sport" friends on this site, but I also know there will be random people who tick me off. I even quit a fairly prominent group here because I felt I was being policed by the admins. I'm not leaving the site, but certainly I don't need to spend my time with that group and have a diminshed sense of enjoyment when I log on (which to my wife's chagrin is "constantly"). Move on, my friend!

There is a little known refutation to mate in 2 that I will now share with the community.  It is a three step process by which any mate can be avoided.

1) Place your left index finger in your left ear and your right index finger in your right ear (other fingers may be substituted as long as the ear canal is protected from sound)

2) Bring the eyelids together in a closing manner, pressing them tightly so no light is able to penetrate.  If the room lights are too bright, consider turning them off

3) Gently rock the upper body back and forth uttering the words "nonny nonny no mate no mate" until someone arrives to take you to a "better place"

This simple process will always result in not being mated after which you may actually claim to be UNMATEABLE.

It would be better if the person pointed out why you couldn't win and therefore asked you to resign nicely. Maybe offer you another game =]

If my opponet's position is hopeless, I sometimes insert ?? into the message box, followed by ???. I rarely go to ???? By then most get the hint. In some cases I can add 'Why are we still playing?', but only if I see my opponent likely to drag out a lost game many moves. But in complex situations, even a few pieces down may not always be lost, depending on who one is playing against. What does get on one's nerves at times is simple, hopeless positions that drag on and on, and on those occasions one might comment on what is apporpriate but in a courteous and respectful way.

no, that's extremely annoying. When someone is up enough that there is just nothing for them to do but hope that they put their extra bishop right up to their the king and asking the lost player to take it, they should resign. As long as the player's rating is 1300 and higher, they will almost 100% convert to a whole point.

being a fairly crappy player myself, it's not always that I'm being rude by not resigning...I most likely missed what you (the stronger player) are seeing...

I will resign when I see forced mate, but I"m sure it is never fast enough...as a matter of fact from now on when playing someone who is clearly stronger than myself I will resign at 1. e4, because everyone knows at this point I am completely lost...I will expect the same sportsmanship from my opponents...

Demanding a resignation from your opponent is uncalled for, but playing on in a completely lost position is also rude. If you can see that it's mate in two and there's no way out, what possible reason can you have for carrying on? I've played against opponents (online and over the board) who have carried on until they were mated, and I consider it insulting that they think I'm stupid enough to allow a stalemate when I'm up by a full rook or more.

Asking your opponent to resign is simply boorish behavior.  The players have engaged to play a game and one of them is going to win.  It is not too much to ask that the winner have the decency not to insult the loser, and make no mistake - being informed by the winner that you have already lost and are now just wasting his time is extremely insulting.  Unfortunately, some of us have learned to play but have not learned how to behave.

I see the recent suggestion that it is rude to play on in a lost position and wonder if the winning player is not assuming too much.  Is it not possible that your opponent is playing on because he does not see the situation clearly?  Rather than assume he is intentionally dragging out a lost game, or that he is praying you will blunder into stalemate, why not concede the possibility that he doesn't get it?  After all, you are winning and he is not - perhaps he simply doesn't understand the situation as well as you do.  Be patient - if you have a won game, you should be able to prove it in due course.  In short, if your opponent is playing on, credit him with naive courage and leave it at that - don't call him rude simply because he is playing his moves.  After all, that is what you bargained for when you started the game, no?

purcellneil, some of the cases are really extreme. For example, the winning side has several pawns that can't be stopped from queening. I think a 1600+ player can see the consequences of that.

I met a player at a tournament once who was very proud of the fact that he had never in his life resigned a game of chess. He simply did not resign and that was that, no matter what was happening on the board. A bit naive if you ask me.

I can understand not resigning if you don't "get it" and see that your position is lost. Certainly I would play on for longer in most positions than a grandmaster would, simply because I'm not clever enough to work out it's over. But in the example cited at the start of this forum, the losing player saw that it was mate in 2. If you can see that and you don't resign, what you're saying is "You've clearly outplayed me so far, but I don't think you're good enough to spot the simple mate that I can see." That's just rude. The same goes for playing on with king against king and rook, or king and queen, etc, which a lot of players on this site advocate doing in the hope of a stalemate.

Generally if you are a weaker player, you learn more from playing more games with stronger players.  If a weaker player does not resign a game against me where it is completely and totally over, I will not grant a rematch.  So in the end, you only hurt yourself when claiming you are "playing on to learn".  If you want to study tactics, grab a tactics book and study tactics on your own time.  I realize that everyone has the right to play on til the cows come home, but realize your opponents time is valuable too.  Playing at a pace of a couple moves a day when you are down two pieces and a bunch of pawns in an endgame is spending your opponents valuable time he could be spending playing more interesting games for a very dubious amount of personal gain.  It's simply rude-- Though it is your right to keep playing.

I think asking someone directly to resign is a little rude-- But delivered with a little tact it is fine.  For example, a polite "Are you ready for our next game yet?" is to the point and politely offers another game.  If they still don't resign, toss em on your noplay list and forget about it, it's just a game.