It could also be that the grandmaster knows that some players wear the "right not to resign" almost like a religion and the grandmaster wants no part of teaching such a person...
Resignation Etiquette???

Royalbishop, whether I re-cycle through ideas or not, it seems like when you don't know how to respond (for example, I showed how you can use a "fantasy example" to still make a real conclusion), you then claim that I'm wrong with no specific reason. If you can find a specific reason that's fine, but your post #163 doesn't tell me what that is. Next post you'll probably make the same speech about how it is hard to argue against me or something, but no matter how many times you do that, you fail to actually address what I am saying.
Ponz, I didn't realize you made such a distinction between "desperate," "hope," or "swindle" chess -- I personally don't, but it's not particularly productive to go on about the slightly different ways we define words. Let's just use a phrase we both define in the same way, for example "A way of playing that creates bad habits," rather than calling it "hope" or "swindle." The quicker we can agree to a common meaning, the quicker we can actually make progress with the real debate.
"It could also be that the grandmaster knows that some players wear the "right not to resign" almost like a religion and the grandmaster wants no part of teaching such a person..."
It could, although then it would be more direct for him just to say that you shouldn't treat the right like a religion or something similar.
"The grandmaster knows that sometimes players play on down piece out of sheer stubborness and he does not want his students to play on out of stubborness."
Well, that interpretation is somewhat more indirect than the one I made, don't you think? I mean, he says pretty directly that you develop bad types of thoughts for your chess when you play on. That doesn't really have anything to do with playing out of stubbornness; playing out of stubbornness would be more of an ethical issue, not an issue concerning how to develop one's chess ability.

"Many reasons why a gm would not want a player to play on down a piece that do not include "swindle chess""
I agree ponz, but we are not talking about all possible reasons; we are talking about what reasons we can directly take away from the quote. Keep in mind that there is a difference between the two.

Ponz, I know we disagree on things, but I'm wondering if we agree on this: If a person plays on with good intentions, is it bad sportsmanship?
Because I do agree that if a person is playing on with bad intentions, then it is indeed bad sportsmanship.
However, I think each individual has their own opinions, and just because I may think a certain position is worth resigning, doesn't mean I think everyone has to agree with me. If someone thinks it's worth playing on in a certain position, I think it's ok for him to have that opinion as long as he has good intentions behind it. So in your case for example, you may think playing on "position x" isn't worth it. But just because you think that, doesn't mean everyone else should have to agree with you. You see what I mean?
And also, royalbishop, I just want to remind you that I have no hard feelings for you at all. I really am just enthusiastic with certain topics . I ensure you, even if I make your life a living hell, I'm really not trying to
.

Your fantasy vs reality. "What if" you said. That is the should have, could have and would have story but did not happen. Stay with us. And stop using the word if so much that might get you back to reality.

Royalbishop, whether I re-cycle through ideas or not, it seems like when you don't know how to respond (for example, I showed how you can use a "fantasy example" to still make a real conclusion), you then claim that I'm wrong with no specific reason. If you can find a specific reason that's fine, but your post #163 doesn't tell me what that is. Next post you'll probably make the same speech about how it is hard to argue against me or something, but no matter how many times you do that, you fail to actually address what I am saying.
Ponz, I didn't realize you made such a distinction between "desperate," "hope," or "swindle" chess -- I personally don't, but it's not particularly productive to go on about the slightly different ways we define words. Let's just use a phrase we both define in the same way, for example "A way of playing that creates bad habits," rather than calling it "hope" or "swindle." The quicker we can agree to a common meaning, the quicker we can actually make progress with the real debate.
"It could also be that the grandmaster knows that some players wear the "right not to resign" almost like a religion and the grandmaster wants no part of teaching such a person..."
It could, although then it would be more direct for him just to say that you shouldn't treat the right like a religion or something similar.
"The grandmaster knows that sometimes players play on down piece out of sheer stubborness and he does not want his students to play on out of stubborness."
Well, that interpretation is somewhat more indirect than the one I made, don't you think? I mean, he says pretty directly that you develop bad types of thoughts for your chess when you play on. That doesn't really have anything to do with playing out of stubbornness; playing out of stubbornness would be more of an ethical issue, not an issue concerning how to develop one's chess ability.
@ ponz
I think Elubas is here just to debate. More than like he found this a perfect place to work on his debating skills for a debate tournament. I bet he is involved in politics and has to keep his skills for debating sharp. When i placed him in a real chess situation he lost miserably, reason for his new pitch using fantasy.

I agree that hypothetical things didn't happen, but that doesn't mean they can't lead to relevant conclusions (note the chess example I gave in particular). I think I'm in sufficient contact with reality .

Well, yes, that's why I'm in the forums: to debate . Discussion is good. It exposes you to different viewpoints. If nothing else, you get a feel for how people can be on such different ends of the spectrum.

Elubas, I think you are asking me if a player plays on with good intentions is it bad sportsmanship?
My answer is that your question is a little vague as there are many instances that a player will play on. [do you mean play on to mate?] One problem I have with you is that you make such vague,ambigous questions and statements.
Honestly, you need to pin down what you mean...play to mate?
play bullit or correspodence chess. What is the time limit?
If you ask a specific unambigous question, I will be glad to try and answer.

Sure, to mate. Let's say in an OTB game with classical time controls. Remember, good intentions.
I'm sorry it was vague, I just thought, due to the context of this thread, it was implied that it meant playing on very late, even in so called ridiculous positions at times (like down a queen and a rook, etc).

Ok, in my opinion it is possible to show bad sportsmanship by a player playing to mate even though the player had good intentions.
Example, it is the last game in the tournament and prizes 1st 2nd 3rd 4th all depend on the outcome of this game, Prizes cannot be given until there is a result in this gaame.
The player playing to mate has been told this However this player happens to think to himself--I should try to win or draw because if I do-it will help me and some others chess players--even though I have only 1 chance in a million not to lose.
This guy is showing bad sportsmanship as he is letting his very small chance not to lose to disrupt the finals of this tournament.
He has good intentions but he has not come down to reality and he is showing badsportsman ship...
[my opinion and in this there is at least one chance in a million-I am wrong]

Ok. The thing is, I value a person's right to be as sure as he can (not simply assume he is going to lose) more than the tournament to finish in a timely manner, at least as far as OTB goes. In CC, when it could mean the game taking an extra year, then, yes, I do think you are causing too much disruption to the point where you have to be practical and think of everyone's time and resign the one in a million position. But if the tournament is held up for merely minutes, maybe even an hour, I don't think that's enough reason to consider playing on unsportsmanlike.
I'm just a purist in that way, I guess. I don't like the idea of having to assume you will lose when you would prefer to be more sure about whether you will actually lose or not. And since competition in general is about focusing on the result, I tend to think small conveniences for other people are just not the priority -- only in extreme circumstances like in CC do I budge on this view.
I think we all like to fight hard, not give our opponents an easy time -- that's the essence of competition. Some people like me take it more to an extreme -- sorry, but I generally isolate competition from personal feelings or outside factors. Competition is where you can love your opponent in real life yet want to tear him or her apart in the fantasy world . It's an escape in that sense.

Elubas the Entertainer!
When given the chance to promte a Pawn to a Queen and the game ends in a draw that move or promote it to Rook and later have a chance to win. What is your move? And why?
Resign Etiquette.....tilt the king to resign. When clearly in lost postition due to material and or position and move on to next game. Showing etiquette allows one to make more friends on this site. By not showing it during a game and then ask for a rematch, your opponent more than likely will refuse that game and challenges in the future from that opponent. More than likely to make more friends that is a primary reason to play online otherwise we would play with our friends, computer and tournaments.
The only time a player should play on in a game is when playing as a team. In which case you need every win you can get when playing. Even a draw is worth points. But in the case where you do not have enought to mate and when even the option to draw is no longer an option.....Resign.

You guys are funny. You know, I am still here, and any questions about this particular GM and what he said or implied can actually be directed to me.

See before online chess and before it was popular. We had Chess Etiquette!
Now that it is possible to hide behind a screen people can say anything. Even change the definition of etiquette and get away with it. No way did they play on a losing situation when playing face to face.
But they are not alone to blame. When play our friends we do not pull out or online ranks and the calculate the difference after the game has finished. If the game looks lost and NO signs of a draw just resign. (Fix? just have area where we just play for fun with no stats on win, rank, opponent and etc). More than likely your friend will gladly tell you how they beat you they leave out some details naturally. Swicth sides and immediately play next game. All their was more than likely a crowd around when we or you play. So dragging out a game would more than likely happen: things like
1 Your opponent gets up walks to talk to ....
2 People standing on your side to see if you any way out.
3 People walk away which is a serious sign you lost.
4 You hear somebody wisper he still has a way out and another say no.
Been around many players online and face to face. We play to have more people to play with and improve (it will vary). In a game when up say double the material and won the position. I respect my opponent if they resign. But i will say if they lost their Queen in the opening and resign that is bad. As that situation still allows a slim chance of a win and possible draw. My main case is when in the End Game and your getting crushed due to mistakes whether they are forced or by fatique just resign. Ask for a rematch at some time later. Now when the opponent does not accept or give a rain date for a game that may seem weak(my opionion)

verybadbishop Elubas has been guessing why people resign and guessing what reactions people would have in certain situations and has been making a lot of assumptions based on what he would do. That is fine except when he tries to put motives on others who might not make such assumptions.
When I showed some games showing very nice resignations he accused me of believing those who did not follow this rare format of very nice resignations were unsportsmanlike and this is something I did not do. I certainly do not say someone is showing bad sportsmanship just because they do not resign in an optimum way.
When I wrote an article on how to enjoy your time and chess even if your opponent was playing a game out to check mate--he again assumed bad motives and tried to say I wanted to tell them to resign or that I thought they were showing bad sportsmanship--when in fact I was just telling the player who was winning how to enjoy his time in such a circumstance.
It is fine to have a discussion or even an argument but it is not so fine to assign bad motives to someone else by making up what you think that person is saying even though that person is saying nothing of the kind.
[this is called the strawman argument]
Yes, resigning is an individual choice and not resigning is an individual choice--I think almost everybody "gets that". If someone lists circumstances where not resigning causes a lot of hardships--that does not mean the person listing such circumstances does not know that not resigning is an individual choice. [that is a lot of negatives but it means, more or less, that we all know that not resigning is an individual choice]
Elubas, It could very well be that the grandmaster thinks that a student who plays on down a piece would have bad thoughts as it would not be real chess.
The grandmaster knows that sometimes players play on down piece out of sheer stubborness and he does not want his students to play on out of stubborness.
Many reasons why a gm would not want a player to play on down a piece that do not include "swindle chess" [I noticed you are now using "hope chess" rather than "swindle chess"
]