People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

Yes, it is legitimate. Does anyone ever resign in tournament chess when their opponents are in time trouble? I read games of grandmasters where they will practically play blitz until the 40 or 45 move time control and then look at the position one last time and decide if they have a chance or to resign. It seems common sense to do that, especially in actual blitz games.

In a daily match game, one player allowed a draw by stalemate with a Queen vs nothing except two locked up pawns.  Don't resign, even if your opponent is totally winning and has all the time in the world.

I hate people who resign before a checkmate, even when they will clearly lose. I always enjoy finishing a game with a brutal checkmate or seeing a long plan of 10-20+ moves come together with an amazing or clever end. Its especially annoying when I'm just about to finish a satisfying checkmate and they just leave.

A while back I was playing a blitz game.  I would go find it but it's too much of a hassle. Anyway my opponent had his rook lined up with my rook, protected by my queen.  I had about 20 sec left and I didn't notice my opponent's time; I was too focused on mine.  I moved my Queen and almost immediately noticed I had left myself wide open to back rank mate. I said Dang it, so I moved the cursor to the Resign flag and was just about to click it when my opponent's time expired.  So I guess it would fit the category of people who don't lose when resigning a position; not quite the same thing but it doesn't have its' own thread.

Dude... if you are going to put it in bold print, at least get the spelling right!

dude?

Nelson, that sounds like incredibly bad advice based on one personal incident.

I think it's acceptable to not resign when you have a genuine chance of getting back into the game. When you're just trying to move your pieces around fast to win on time, there's no point unless you're a chess hustler playing for money. Otherwise you're just wasting people's time.

If you are a team player and your opponent times out or is closed down for cheating, your team gets a point. That is very commendable team play to put up with an opponent for the team. And if you have no time to waste playing chess, then you shouldn’t be playing chess.

I'm not talking about team chess or anything else competitive. I'm talking about playing chess for fun. I want to spend as much time having fun playing chess and not being bored by some idiot who is desperate to score some points.

No, that sounds dull.

Sounds like projection to me.

For what it's worth... anyone who resigns in bullet is a fool (unless their opponent's next move is mate). Anyone who complains about them not resigning in bullet has probably lost a won game to time. As for longer games, it depends a lot on how "lost" the position is.  

Just yesterday I hung my Queen and ended up mating my opponent (you can find the game if you look hard enough) You should try bullet to get a whole new perspective on when you should resign.

I've often resigned in Bullet.  Since it's so fast I'd rather just play a whole new game than waste another 30s to a minute playing 3 pieces down.

@ Richard

Fun is subjective. It is different from one person to the next. One person may be enjoying continuing to play in a game while you do not. If you are not getting fun playing a game, I suggest you quit the game and never play that person again. If you play only for fun, winning or losing should not matter.

That is what I do. Anyone who ignores basic chess etiquette gets instantly barrred.

There's no such things as etiquette in online chess against 'people' who could just as easily be machines as humans.