When to resign - Etiquette - An honest appeal

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.

So after what move does, say, Scholar's Mate ( bishop and queen triangulating f2/f7 ) become legitimate play rather than a "trick" or a "trap"?  I just got it on about move 10, but presumably using it as an opening is "bad form" ?? ... Surely all openings contain strategic advantages and target the opponent in some way and there are always defensive moves available. Seeing several moves ahead is surely desirable as one progresses, but if the opponent doesn't see the plan then any such activity is effectively a trap/trick for them. My point about ratings is that even a beginner is quite likely to stumble upon positions which are well-known tricks/traps simply by analyzing the board. To avoid all such positions would mean knowing them in the first place. As for resignation - the original topic - it is to me quite obvious that if I reached a high rating and was playing a high-rated opponent it would be far more clear that a position was unwinnable than it is in the sub-1000 category, when each of us will make errors at every stage - most notably blundering stalemate not checkmate with promoted queens, which is surely a useful lesson and unlikely to be learned if resignation occurs once a player is down to a king and some stranded pawns, for example. At this level, encouraging folk to resign when they think they are losing will stifle their development as players. How this is drinking the KoolAid - i.e. blindly adhering to a nonsensical and perilous strategy  - is beyond me. As for the notion of bullying, it seems to me that saying that a lower-rated player, who may lack confidence and only know a few techniques must be wary of undefined arcane personal notions of etiquette as well as the actual rules, or risk being blocked is just that in itself.

** I don't mean playing for stalemate, but rather that if my opponents don't resign there's every chance that I will blunder a winning position by carelessly allowing it - so resignation would deny me the chance to learn to be more accurate.

Thank you for making that post. That was nicely written and properly argued for.

I've seen my fair share of scholastic tourneys. After a while, most kids stop going for annoying attacks on f7, even if they are likely to win. It simply stops being satisfying. 

As for etiquette, usually beginners aren't taught it. In fact, many coaches of all levels insist that you shouldn't resign, ever.. If you mention that it's not good manners to play the game that way, many intermediate players and several highly rated players vehemently oppose you in a forum. 

The cool aid is masqueraded under "being resourceful" or "being aggressive" or similar statements. If you are used to going for tricks and traps and you play the same pool of players, eventually, you end up ditching some of those behaviours, if only because it gets old... But, it seems many have to go through that experience or else they can't understand...

Rating is everything. If you were 2,500 your opponents would be resigning.

Your rating shows that you can’t convert won positions so no matter how much you complain this can all be solved by becoming a better player.

InTeReStInG

I've seen instances of obnoxious play at GM level. Want a recent example? Giri vs Xiong, on Tata Steel, 2020. Played almost to the 50 move rule.

Not even at GM level you are free of bad manners...

Bruh...both had the same amount of material ? What are you trying to say here ?

Even then, I wouldn't really recommend anyone to resign, unless there is absolutely zero counterplay or chances of a foretress:

Ba2 is very pretty and imaginative. The idea is that Black wants to play g5 and foretress, but Qc2+! stops it. Ba2-Bb1 stops Qc2, and paves the way for a foretress. The final position is a foretress - white has no way of making progress.

Giving up the queen for chances of a foretress with two bishops was very nice as well.

OP would probably consider that on this occasion there were 2 Kuntes playing... 

LOL 

i keep resigning know I am a loser and can't win, but this website stops me from playing just because they think im a cheater >: (

What I'm trying to say by bringing up Giri vs Xiong is that it was an obvious draw at that level. In fact, it was an obvious draw at typical master level (forget about whether. G, I, F or even C or N master level). What did Giri willingly do? Play unnecessary moves and then agree to a draw a couple of moves before it was going to be called anyway.

That's bad manners, right there, in OTB chess, at GM level, in an official tournament. The same crappy attitude.

Bruh listen , I am not being rude but I don't think so you have the ability yet to evaluate the games of super GMs and tell that a position was certainly draw and the moves made further were unnecessary.

which tournament? sometimes they keep playing on because they play on because of tournament situation, qualifications, titles, etc.