When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal

Surely rating is everything in this debate. At under 1000 one cannot assume that a position is hopeless. I have had opponents place checking pieces where the king can take them on many occasions. Some opponents seem surprised when I actuallly move the king! ... And I am not mocking anyone because we all play at the level we play at, and are matched against those of similar ability. I am always grateful when opponents play to the end and allow me to get my clunky checkmates with promoted queens, as playing against engines is totally flawed as a way to learn - they don't really play like humans at all. I suspect that a lot of sub-1000 players resign when they see patterns they do not recognize, and I can't see how they would ever get good at endgame geometry by doing so. The main thing at my level is to have fun and try to remember about common traps and blunders. Furthermore, there is no comparison at all with unlimited time OTB games as the max length for me is 20mins if we both use all our time so hardly a problem if we play to a finish. Finally - I find the idea that some moves are "tricks" extremely odd. The idea is to win by moving pieces legally so all moves, gambits, traps, whatever are essentially fair surely and other than using assistance it is impossible to cheat or be "immoral" as surely ANY good positional play in a combative game could be seen this way once that is a concept ... who decides what is a fair tactic and what is a "trap" ??  Baffling.

If only rating was THE thing. It's not. Etiquette is something you can exercise under 1000, over 2000 and being world champion. But some players choose not to go by it. Is that wrong? It's legal, it's not unreasonable, it's somewhat useful for some. You could argue no. I argue in favour of considering blatant disregard for playing according to etiquette a sign of latent (sometimes evident) bullying behaviour. You may think I exaggerate. You may think it's ridiculous. Tenable positions, not unlike mine. I've seen that type of behaviour promoted in here. I've seen it promoted elsewhere. I'm vehemently against it.

The thing that you don't have the patience to go on and just convert your obviously winning position into a win and instead get irritated when the other player doesnt resign gives your opponents an incentive to do the same. If you are in a obviously winning position say up by two minor pieces or a rook.....it shouldn't take you much time to convert it. That would be much more productive since its going to give you a habit of playing endgames and help you avoid making a fuss about people not resigning and their etiquette. 

You have every right to want people to resign early. I like making the most of my time as much as anyone else. But you're gonna spend a lot of time on this site butthurt if you get upset when people don't resign... much easier to "punish" their "lack of sportsmanship" by just converting the win. Being less salty and just enjoying the win will only help you

Also, most of this forum seems to be in disagreement with ya. Sometimes when you think everyone around you is wrong it's time to take a look inward

-Someone who has been successfully converting RKvK endgames for a long time

Yeah exactly my point.

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. 

Pick a number Wornaki, 1 or 2

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.