People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

If I was losing, i would probably give a draw request for each move. 

There's no reason to be frustrated at all, they're simply doing you the courtesy of allowing you to show them the mate you envisioned.  Why are you so insulted?  A lost position should not be resigned but played for a draw.   Especially under time pressure, many opponents with too much overwhelming power but too little skill will give you a stalemate.

To "Thoughtdancer" I agree with you 100% but with on-line chess, as compared to OTB, etiquette and good manners don't get the respect that they should have. Don't those opponents any respect and just play the game out and then block them. If blocking happens to them enough times then on-line chess will be a better place. As to those who advocate playing slavishly for a draw in a game that really doesn't have much consequence - get a life and move on.

Hence why I said some. Come on now, don't pick a fight when there isn't one. It happens. Those that do it because they get upset or grumpy, well they should relax a little more. Not try to do something to try and annoy the other person. Hence "Some"

Daily chess is totally different.  People know what they are signing up for and there are plenty of reasons why someone would play a game out that they wouldn't bother doing so over the board.

The amount of rating points you lose when losing a game can change quite a lot if your opponent is gaining or losing rating points themselves during the course of your game.

The fact that moves are played on the last day or in the last hours of a 3 day limit doesn't signify anything either.  Sure some players may deliberately wait until that moment just to be annoying, but the vast majority who do that do so simply because they only make a move in their Daily games when they are about to run out of time.

I routinely do that.  Unless I am especially enthusiastic to play moves I ignore my Daily games that have a day or more left for my move.  It has nothing to do with my position - I don't even look at the positions if I have a lot of games going on, I just stop when I've moved in all the games I'm about to lose on time in and come back tomorrow to play the next ones.

Personally I almost never play on in a clearly lost position in a Daily game, that said, but I have no problem with people who do.  I signed up for it knowing the time control and there's never any hurry to finish daily games anyway.  So what if it lasts a few months?  I've played tournaments that have lasted years.

IF it is a courtesy then it is one which should be extended by the losing player when they are ready, not expected by the winning player because they are too lazy or impatient to win what is a clearly won game (if it isn't a clearly won game then obviously expecting your opponent to resign is absurd)

unfortunately there isn't much you can do about stallers, apart from pity them, if you have time.

they usually live on this site and dont have a life.

im going to finally win against one tomorrow cos i've done a conditional move so it's checkmate in 1. its a team match so i'm doomed to play them again, unless some bright spark can tell me how to just 'time out', as a premium member.

the person i'm on about moved every day, then when the game was over it went to 9 minutes left. pathetic but you have to try and rise above it.

How hard is it to rise above it in Daily chess?  Games last so long it makes 0 difference.

The goal of chess is checkmate.  Resignation is just a shortcut that only the losing player (or the winning player, I suppose, if they wish to resign) can decide.  It doesn't matter how lost the position is, it's still up to them.  The winning player has no right to expect anything, so yes, of course it is lazy or impatient if you moan that your opponent doesn't resign.  Yes, they are probably stupid, but the winning player still should always expect to play to checkmate.

Hi, I'm @WSama, and some of you may know me. I've been running an experiment here on chess.com called the Blogadook, and you're invited. Some of you might wonder why I'm doing this, and the simple answer is 'chess science'. I assure you that this is not a prank of any sorts, so please participate with the intention of contributing or educating yourself. Thank you.

https://www.chess.com/blog/WSama/the-principle-series-piece-development

I'm not assuming any ground, I'm responding to someone who used precisely those words 'but you have to try and rise above it'.

And sure, any dullard can see when they've been checkmated.  They get a message up on screen telling them.  Until then the game isn't over.  As already discussed, there are various reasons for not resigning in a Daily game when you might otherwise do in a Blitz game.  Personally I resign very early in many games, but I've never had expectation on my opponent to resign because that's just stupid.

Someone talking all their time to make moves in a Daily game doesn't waste even 1s of my time.  I just play my moves when it is my turn again.

I often like to argue both sides of an argument, just for amusement, and practice at understanding both sides, though the key point of this thread was someone in the winning position being annoyed that their opponent doesn't resign.  There's a big difference between rejecting that as a valid point and thinking that people should play on in clearly losing positions.

I deliberately misinterpreted the point about seeing when a game is over precisely because it is only the person on the losing side who gets to decide if the game ends earlier than checkmate, the natural game end (unless it is a draw).  

I've proved myself on more than one occasion that my opponent was right not to resign in a winning position when I hung a mate while a Queen up once and, on another occasion I had 4 pieces for a Queen (which, to be fair is only resignable for the person with the Queen when good players are playing) in an easily winning position, but it was Blitz and I moved fast, didn't coordinate my pieces and got them all forked and lost 3 pieces in as many moves!  That was entirely my fault for not winning a 'won' game.

Expecting your opponent to resign is discourteous and impatient.  But equally not resigning in clearly lost positions (in a live game certainly) just wastes people's time, except in the (minority) of cases where they are actually learning.

People should go into every game with the expectation that they have to deliver checkmate to win.  When they don't have to it is just a bonus and a time-saving.  Being stubborn when losing though is just silly.

Pretty much nailed it I think... Sounds about right to me

It's really frustrating. I noticed that here in CC this is more common. Players of category A or B are more hopeful players because they have begun to understand the power of the initiative. They do not need to have initiative, it is enough for them initiative in the near future. Then they play until their hope is fed after not by any counterattack, but by the chance to win by time.

They are not wrong, just imitate the strong players with a uglier version of resistance. I have seen Carlsen continue to play against a 2630 player with -3 and win when the opponent made a silly mistake.

And frustration is not because of resistance, it's because insisting works. I have already lost many games, either by time or by some serious mistake with a totally won position

As we say here in Brazil "accept that it hurts less".

I think I get it now. Thougtdancer said something I have never heard before or thought of before. "humiliating checkmate". I now understand why some people get frustrated when people dont resign. It's because they believe a checkmate is humiliating, so they assume the opponent (who is losing) must think checkmates are humiliating too. I dont think I will start resigning games just because some people believe checkmates are humiliating, but at least I do understand their point of view now. I still think the whole point of chess is to play until the end, whether that's stalemate, checkmate, or draw.  I have resigned games before, but only if I have to go do something else, never because of the position on the board. I think it's rude, or bad etiquette,  to resign a game based solely on the position because it denies the other person the satisfaction of checkmate, which is the whole point of the game.

So, to summarise, it's rude to resign when you are losing and it's rude not to resign so basically it is rude to be losing a game of chess, and since one or other players has to be losing unless every game is a draw then either every game of chess should just be a tame draw or it's rude to play chess at all.

Good to know that everyone is so much in agreement :-)

Just shows what a complete load of garbage people's ideas of 'etiquette' in chess are.  Just play by the rules and all is fine.  Introducing your own 'rules' is just stupid.

Wow... Reach ten thousand comments and I'll send that person a trophy.