When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal

It's a blitz game. By the time a player is r+k vs k or a similar endgame, the entire thing has lost its sense to me. Playing that from either side is only meant to be annoying. Granted, many think otherwise. They have their reasons, just as I have mine. Learning to be graceful in defeat or victory for me is far more important than technique or rating. But it seems that saying so bothers people more than lack of etiquette bothers me.

Etiquette is something anyone can do. But it's not required. Chess is a game of requirements. You are required to put the opponent in checkmate. If you don't, then there are all sorts of options. You can resign, you can play for a draw, you can stalemate, you can lose on time. Chess isn't golf, where etiquette is spelled out in the rules. An entire section is devoted just to etiquette. 

I haven't read the rules of chess, but I doubt there is even mention of etiquette, let alone a section describing what you should or shouldn't do. I don't understand why some people get so upset over winning. Just put the opponent in checkmate. That is, afterall, the whole purpose of the game. 

The player can flag you on time , or make some dubious moves and get stalemated .

It's an opinion. It's not wrong to have one and to back it up. I have done that over and over in this thread. The fact that any disagree does not mean my opinion is wrong.

As said, I have very little regard towards that kind of behaviour. I consider it morally bankrupt and I've stated my reasons. Disagree of you must, as I will not change my mind.

PS: I've been coverting wins for a long time too. 

Flagging in a lost position is also bad manners. Stalemating is typically avoidable...

Here is the game you linked to resurrect this absurd thread. On move 62 you have mate in 2 moves...Re3 Kc1 Re1# but instead you make 5 moves and repeat the position for a draw. It took you longer to draw the game than it would have done for you to win it. So you wasted your own time for either of the following reasons:

1.You fully believe everything you are posting but your endgame technique is garbage. You can't convert easily winning endgames and this fully justifies your opponents choice not to resign.

2.This whole thread is a troll and you wanted the game to end in a draw so you could post it here and continue as things had gone quiet for a while. 

well if you have little regards towards such behaviour then you must know that the majority aren't going to tolerate salty behaviour as well. 

I've stated my reasons. To me, stubbornly playing a lost position (with hope of a draw with correct play) signals you are the type of player who values not losing over everything else. That's a tenable position. It's also one I'll always criticize. To me, it's a sign of latent potential for bullying and unnecessary aggression, which I consider to be detrimental to a game playing community. 

Quid pro quo. Don't give me annoying behaviour and I will not give you salty behaviour. It's that simple.

lol what a tight slap on his face

I don't have too. You pick whichever suits you. I'm going to always go with MY reasons to call that kind of behaviour disrespectful. If you don't like it, you can always ignore me. You can even block me if you want.

If you know how to convert wins and not stupidly end up drawing the position like in the game above , your going to find people less annoying.

If you care enough to try and understand (even if you fail) what my position in this thread is all about, we may be able to discuss this topic without making it personal.

My points remain. The only reason I resurrected this was because of a player who openly admitted he doesn't resign lost positions of that type. I wanted to show that game to signal how much I disapprove of that behaviour. The rest of the commentary of mine deals with what I find disrespectful and unnecessary aggressive about said behaviour and other similar ones.

I think you meant to say losing, not lost. A lost position is checkmate. Game over. If the game is still ongoing, and one side has a disadvantage that is losing, not lost. It seems to me you are criticizing or arguing about something that's not even in the rules. Might as well complain the opponent is wearing a plaid shirt. 

You can make of my points whatever you want. If all you go by is the rules, then I can't say I would consider you a great sportsperson. 

Also etiquette you talk about has a lot to do with rating as well.

Chess is just a math problem. A game. A puzzle, where people play each other to see who can solve it the best. It's not the same as a sport, where sportsmanship is a factor. Chess, when it comes down to it, is just numbers. Numbers dont really care about etiquette. 

Do you think someone who has drunk from the "cool aid" of never resigning, playing for tricks and traps, attempting to flag at every game, will text a certain rating band and "suddenly" ditch those behaviours? Have you got any proof of this online? OTB, I've rarely seen that going on when it's adults playing and they are at least intermediate players.

Well that's a selective case . And yeah I don't think so he is going to ditch his behaviour. What I am trying to point out applies to everyone in general. Etiquette (if at all you give it too much importance) also involves the rating factor. Sometimes at lower levels people may not know that they are in a losing position and there's almost no way to recover. I see you are rated 1000 to 1100 , and you get upset over your opponent not resigning in a rook + king vs king position. There's plenty of reasons behind it. One is he doesn't know that there's no way he can survive (its very much possible at 1100) . The second is there's a healthy chance players at your level do not know how to convert a rook + king v k endgame. I have seen players stalemate a Q+k v K at 1300 as well. So if you can't convert them why should your opponent hand you that undeserved victory by resigning when he can fairly get a draw ? At your level things can be dramatic and anything can happen. So you see etiquette changes at different levels and ratings. Had there been two players say around 1800 , and one was up a rook , the other would have resigned immediately. But same can't be said for a 1100.

I happen to think the idea that you can play a lost endgame such as Q+K vs K because there's a chance of stalemating is what I object to the most. I think of the attitude behind the idea to be representative of an inability to accept you have been outplayed. You can believe a 1100 player doesn't know this, and it may be true, but I'm not of the opinion, many have been conditioned by coaches and other players to fight till the bitter end and to be proud of getting a draw or a win because their opponent flagged. that kind of attitude, that kind of behaviour I find deeply disrespectful, but I know many don't see it that way.