When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal

Agreed. I can respect them not resigning, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Playing for tricks in a losing position is a skill as well. If you resign when you blunder a piece without even trying to swindle, you will be a worse player in the long run. One time I was a piece and a pawn down, my opponent had a knight, a bishop and a pawn. I sacrificed the piece for a pawn as we were both around 1 200-1 300 at the time. That is a lost endgame, but of course he didn't know how to convert. I still haven't learned that checkmate. On the other hand I had a queen for a knight in the endgame (I was in the same rating range), and I was wondering if I could win the position. The opponent flat out resigned and I believe I had around 30% practical chance at that point to win because that ending can be tricky. 

And those are more clear cut examples where you might resign. But a piece or even a rook down when there are many pieces left... you shouldn't resign right away for sure. You may choose to do so later on when the position is more clear cut, but even then, you don't have to.

Amazing post. Your opponent did the right thing, clearly.

Yeah, I mean if he didn't manage to win, it is even more justified, not the other way around.

True

Brief resurrection of this thread by OP. I just blocked my latest opponent, after he confirmed he is the non resigner type. The game that prompted my block was this:

https://chess.com/live/game/5846894777

Next time in find myself in this situation, I will resign myself, send a message (if chat is enabled) saying how disrespectful this is and immediately block them. I wish there was a way to know disrespectful people before playing them. It would make my chess life much easier.

Also, before you tell me (once again) to learn to mate with R and K, I block on principle. If you're the non resigner type, I don't want to play you (unless I know you somehow or the setting is official competition). Life's too short to deal with that kind of chess player. I encourage you ask to do the same with non resigners of the stubborn ilk. Don't let your chess life be filled with people who have such a distorted view of a game.

This game proved that he shouldn't resign. It proved that you should work a bit on basic checkmates. 

I'm entitled to blocking them for being obnoxious. End of story.

The game proved he's obnoxious. He even offered a draw at the beginning of the r+k vs k sequence. Again... I don't care about the result. I couldn't care less about my technique. I do care about playing well mannered opponents. He was not. Hence, he gets blocked.

Thank you. I hope you have a nice life yourself  Also, remember that not everyone takes chess as a way to satisfy the desire to annoy others   Some of us like the game when it's played with well mannered people. Shane it can't always be the case.

It is his time to waste it, and it is your job to prove the advantage. Offering a draw in losing position like that is dubious, for sure. If you were blocking him for that reason, I would understand. Your reasoning, however, is a bit unreasonable, in my humble opinion, as what he did isn't bad at all. It can make a player more resourceful, especially when they are lower rated. I will state my case below. 

I just know that I would be a lot worse today if I resigned at the first sign that I am losing the game. Not only that I have drawn and even won some of that games, but there is a secondary, much more important reason why you shouldn't be mad at someone because they are not resigning early. You would have less experience in endgames, you are less resourceful because you can't find tricky moves etc. if not playing out some bad positions. You don't have to play till mate, but at least for some time, and even till mate if you have the will at lower levels.

There was a game, I had a queen vs a knight endgame, it is completely winning but at that time, I am sure I didn't know how to win (I know now, but I could still mess it up because I had it only once on the board). My opponent just resigned without question, after about 5 seconds in an 1 hour per side game. On the other hand, I sacrificed a piece for opponent's last pawn and played out knight and bishop vs my lone king, and of course he didn't know how to win it, I still don't know that checkmate. 

Learning tricks, stalemate tricks, perpetual checks etc. , is not just important for losing positions, it transposes to other areas of the game.

If you are here just for fun, and don't care about improvement, that is valid, but if that is the case, why writing this post in the first place?

I would say that you would like to better your game. If that is the case, this is not really the way to do so. But of course, you may do as you wish.  If not something else, I am giving you the opportunity to block me right now and not be frustrated in the future if some algorithm decides for us to play a game, as you know my stance on resignation. 

You don't have to resign and you don't have to accept a draw if you don't want to. It is your right to play the way you like. Just don't offer draw offers after every move, don't get in a losing position and make your opponent wait for half an hour, or something else that is obviously not that nice.

 Apart from that, you may play your game as you see fit.

No, it's not wrong not to resign a game. You have the right to play on until checkmate, stalemate, draw by repetition or agreement or even draw by arbiter's decision (in tournament games). You do whatever you want within the rules. And the rules don't mandate resignation at any time.

My point is about etiquette and the way I see sportsmanlike conduct. You are free to disagree. You even have GMs like Serper in this very website supporting the "never resign" philosophy. I... just disagree. If someone doesn't resign a lost position and even offers a draw in it, my MO so far has been to ask why. If I get a "I never resign" response, I'm likely to block them. It's my right too

I play here for fun (and only very distantly secondarily, for improvement). I do play chess in other places for improvement. And whereas I'll always morally disapprove of not resigning, I'm ok with it in official competitions or when I know it's the player's philosophy and I voluntarily enter the game. 

One of the things that blitz chess (especially over the Internet) has amped has been the rise of the non resigner mentality, the flagging mentality, the traps in the opening mentality. Even titled players who I like a lot have flirted or even downright espoused those philosophies. Paired with young people for whom winning at all costs comes naturally, the gentlemanly essence of the game is being lost at an accelerated pace. That's my take. And my very very very modest attempt to bring back manners by disengaging with people who go for that degeneration is what feels right to me.

I am only about 700 rating, having been given 667 as a starting point. I went down to c400 and have only got back up because I have never resigned, and also because I continue games against the computer when my opponent resigns. You never know when a player will blunder. Some people resign the instant they blunder their queen, but I have often lost from being a queen up, so it is not always the best plan. It is perfectly within the rules to play until the end of the time. I've come back in endgames many times, from as much as -17 in material on one occasion, as I am much better at these than openings, and the clock is also a factor ( I play 10mins mostly ) and if time is limited, then them's the rules afaic. I often lose from having taken too much thinking time early on so that works both ways. I am sure it is very different for folk in the 1600+ bracket, as one can be much more certain of the likely outcome. I've also never regretted declining a draw, even if I lose I usually learn something.

I'm actually quite sure that's not the case, for I have asked chess players. Competitive chess at higher levels (and arguably sometimes at lower levels too) is marked by trying to gain the upper hand in the psychological aspect of the game. If you can annoy your opponent you may have an edge. Interestingly enough, in competitive chess I haven't found nearly as many players going for the annoying label. Maybe because they've got reputations to keep.

Don't make it about me. I'm talking about the general principle of being annoying to your opponent, which plays a role in competitive chess. I've noticed that the non resigners, draw offer maniacs and play for tricks and traps players online are usually ultra competitive people, mostly young(ish) and typically very likely to be unappreciative of the nature of the game. Many, and I've asked them personally, derive pleasure from crushing their opponents on the board and they feel great about tricking opponents, annoying them and humiliating them if possible. They are, in a nutshell, the chess equivalent of bullies. Since I'm against that kind of attitudes, my response to the bullying type is to disengage. 

bruh  🤦🏼‍♀️ beginners are told not to resign by their coaches.