I might add that beginners are often playing against beginners. None of your opponents should be assumed to know how to finish the game. I've taught many hundreds of young players chess, have watched many thousands of their game. It takes a lot of time before the vast majority can perform even the simplest of checkmates.
If you are playing someone who knows how to checkmate, you are getting a free lesson. Especially if you resist as strenuously as possible.
You are missing the point.
Knowing when and why to resign is an important part of chess. That's because you aren't playing some faceless entity or an engine; you are actually playing another human being, and as silly as this sounds, it's important to at least try and treat each other with some dignity and respect.
When you play on a queen down, what you are really saying to your opponent (without actually putting it into words) is "I expect you to blunder your queen back at some point." In reality, it's a way of calling someone a noob without actually coming out and saying it.
Nevertheless, I have encountered numerous players who, for whatever reason, refuse to resign despite massive material deficits and, when that happens, I have no choice but to give them what they appear to be asking for: a solid thrashing over the board.
I don't like to do that, but unless they resign, they leave me with little choice.
Ziryab's advice is good.
In one OTB tournament game I was 1800 vs a 2200 (master).
Near the end of the game, I was down on time and position. I knew my position was dead lost, but I didn't immediately see the key idea to break it down. So I kept playing because I wanted him to show me how a player much stronger than me would approach the situation. After that I resigned.
It wasn't rude of me at all, and he was happy to analyze with me after the game.
That's a very apples to oranges comparison. What you are talking about is an OTB game between very experienced players, and in reality, you were really interested in how he would converted a winning position into an actual win. This is possibly the most difficult thing to do even for experienced players. Converting a win a queen up by comparison is trivial.
I might add that beginners are often playing against beginners. None of your opponents should be assumed to know how to finish the game. I've taught many hundreds of young players chess, have watched many thousands of their game. It takes a lot of time before the vast majority can perform even the simplest of checkmates.
If you are playing someone who knows how to checkmate, you are getting a free lesson. Especially if you resist as strenuously as possible.
You are missing the point.
Knowing when and why to resign is an important part of chess. That's because you aren't playing some faceless entity or an engine; you are actually playing another human being, and as silly as this sounds, it's important to at least try and treat each other with some dignity and respect.
When you play on a queen down, what you are really saying to your opponent (without actually putting it into words) is "I expect you to blunder your queen back at some point." In reality, it's a way of calling someone a noob without actually coming out and saying it.
Nevertheless, I have encountered numerous players who, for whatever reason, refuse to resign despite massive material deficits and, when that happens, I have no choice but to give them what they appear to be asking for: a solid thrashing over the board.
I don't like to do that, but unless they resign, they leave me with little choice.
Ziryab's advice is good.
In one OTB tournament game I was 1800 vs a 2200 (master).
Near the end of the game, I was down on time and position. I knew my position was dead lost, but I didn't immediately see the key idea to break it down. So I kept playing because I wanted him to show me how a player much stronger than me would approach the situation. After that I resigned.
It wasn't rude of me at all, and he was happy to analyze with me after the game.