Fight on to the Bitter End?

 

People that play on deserve to be stripped of all material but their king, then watch helplessly while the opponent promotes every pawn they have to knights, then get mated by a herd of horses in the most humiliating manner possible...that's how you teach people to resign.  

Don't respect that I have the skill to beat you in a clearly won position?  Then I won't respect your ability or time either.  Believe me, after I mate you in funny patterns a dozen times in long drawn-out frustrating games, you'll learn to resign.  If you are obstinate, I'll push your king around the board for hundreds of moves forcing you to spell out "I suck at chess and do not know when to resign" with your king...

P.S. I am a nice player.  I reserve this kind of lesson for people that are so stubborn about not resigning that they won't resign in a K+Q vs. K or K+2R vs. K situation.  If you opponent is kicking your a$$, and you know how to win the game from their position, then guess what?  They know how to win the game from that position.

Nothing wrong with playing this out since Black has some tricks available.

jengaias

It's an interesting endgame, and it's one of a handfull that I regularly practice against a computer.  The winning technique is not that simple.

I just played it against the computer.  It took me 45 moves to promote the pawn.  I'm not sure it's worth Black holding out for a draw in a casual game..

I have been in situations where I had a few pieces left and my opponent was left with just his king and some pawns. Even I am not going to blow a game like that, and with my opponent having several pawn moves left there is no risk of a stalemate, so why play on and waste my time and his?

If there's a forced checkmate on the board, you should let it be seen.  If it's just a losing position, you decide -- it's based on time control, your opponent's rank, how you feel, etc.

My opinion is that if you feel like playing to the bitter end be my guest. I actually enjoy playing a totally won position and trying to handle it with precise technique. I also find value in trying to defend lost positions, having to create chances and relying on tactical complications.
The point is I've won many games I should have lost and lost many games I should have won.
Just make the next best move and stop whining about chess etiquette. You will notice that the ones complaining are usually sore losers.
Just today in the Candidates Tournament Peter Svidler was in a position against Karjakin that looked utterly lost, only to have the roles reversed later in the game. The point is it was back and forth with mistakes and inaccuracies. Chess is a game of MISTAKES! BTW the game ended in a draw. Yawn

I remember playing a standard game and I lost a rook enprise. I contemplated resigning in a few more moves until my opponent started harrassing me for not already resigning. This made me want to fight on and in the end I won...I think his anger at my not resigning put him off his game. In another game I lost my Queen early in the opening and because it made me mad at myself for losing her so easily I decided to fight on..in the end I won...so I believe it depends on how you feel during the game, whether you want to just quit and play another game or fight on. 

In a tournament game I was down a queen, a took, and two pawns. I only had my king and a pawn. I won when I queened the pawn, and my opponent blundered his queen. I think that you should play it out until the end because even if your opponent doesn't horribly blunder like mine did you can go for stalemate.

it depend if what his/her live rating before you decide to resign.

As the initiator of this forum, I thank you all for your opinions and contributions. My opinion has not changed: I think that when it's a lost cause, resigning is the honorable path, as in two games I'm playing at the moment. In one my opponent is down a minor piece, with no positional compensation in the end game.  In the other game my opponent is down a minor piece + two pawns in the end game. True he does still possess a passed pawn, so I suppose all hope for him is not lost, but he's not going to promote it. In short, I most identify with Btickler's post #25.  Good chess everyone.

I believe, on the winning side, there is value in trying to find the best move, simplification, or most elegant win; and conversely, on the losing side, in trying to create counterplay through introducing complications, or just putting up the most stubborn defense.  I'm no GM but I've won many seemingly lost positions, even in correspondence chess.  And you can be sure I've blown my fair share of won positions.

Resign

I personally don't resign unless I'm down to my king alone, or if I'm in a position of mate in 1 and I can't stop it from happening. If you resign as soon as you lose the advantage; 1. You dog the other player from getting endgame experience, and 2. You lose valuable experience of learning how to play while you're down. I agree that there is a point when you should resign, but not if there is a possibility of a draw or even a win.

As someone relatively new to chess (although a player of many competitive board/war games) I find the concept of resigning in chess unusual. If my opponent has formulated an excellent plan I feel obliged to allow them to execute it - I learn a lot of stuff on the way. I guess my main point is that I like playing chess - win or lose - I am still enjoying myself. Chess is a very beautiful game, a great strategy or tactic is wonderful to see, even if it is not me doing it!

Now a tournament is different, there are time constraints and your opponent would probably enjoy the break before their next game.