I found the 108 move game from a couple of days ago where Wornaki "didn't care" about mating his opponent with KR vs K.  It is obvious he was simply unable to find the mate, flailed around until the computer ended it with the 50 move rule. Then he came to the forums to complain that his opponent didn't resign!

What a loser. He claims to be able to mate with a rook, but he can't.  

To Wornaki.  Here's a present for you.  I know you play chess but don't care about check mating (??????🤷🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️⁉️⁉️😕)

But you might want to watch this short video on KR check mating.

https://youtu.be/8mUhYQBZkCI

An honest appeal? Ok then. Let me be honest with you:

I don't have time to read the 100+ comments of garbage you've undoubtedly received as replies, but I can tell you two things that I've learned from 10+ years of reading topics like these:

1) Rude is defined as the person who stops taking the game seriously first. In other words, as long as you earnestly believe you're trying to win or draw, don't worry about it. Experienced players will understand. Some players could be 5 queens down against me and not resign and I wouldn't take offense. What matters is authenticity. Be true to yourself and people will respond to that.

2) But how to be "true" to yourself? The answer is that you should resign when the following conditions are satisfied:
     a) You believe you're lost
     b) You believe your opponent knows why your position is lost
     c) You believe your opponent can win without any difficulty (including time trouble)
     d) You believe you don't have anything to learn from watching their winning technique

7 pages and doesn't anyone realize this is nothing but an attention grab?

Not only am I too drunk to care, but 99% of posts on here are worth ignoring.

You're asking too much of me to show discretion in this one topic when in the first place I only logged on to this website for the sake of some frivolous human interaction.

Glad to provide you with fodder. Proud that you think so highly of a simple statement

Glad you enjoyed it, viciousness aside

Thanks. It's a good resource. I'll take your words in good spirit, even when you don't mean them that way.

tt wasn't me who made this about me. I made it about an appeal to beginner players (like me) not develop the bad habit of being non resigners and then keeping that bad habit when transitioning OTB. I can't be blamed for the way many in here have decided to make it about me whining, about me not knowing how to mate with a lone rook or about how I play chess.

I can get behind those rules to be true to myself. Now, granted... it doesn't mean everybody should. However, if they don't, then my suggestion that they follow the type of rules you espouse is met with derision, scorn, flaming and more. Why? Because I dare say it's a bad habit for serious chess to become the type of person that "learned" to never resign as a beginner in online chess and thinks that's the way it should be for all kinds of chess, especially OTB chess.

I was just about to start posting some 'stuff' but yes you have a point I think its etiquette to resign in OTB but in online I don't think you should if it is something like blitz in which you can flag 

OP says he couldn't mate with a K+R vs K because he wasn't up for thinking... what part of a K+R vs K mate requires you to think even half-heartedly.

I never advocated for people to "never resign."

It's too bad you don't understand how good my conceptualizations are.

But I'm used to it. Pearls before swine and all that.

@llama - I think that's a fair point.  However, most amateur players play worse when they're losing, while the stronger ones I know play better.  You don't learn to be a tenacious defender or a creative attacker unless you try things, and there's no better time to try things than in a game you think you're going to lose anyway.

I think Frank Marshall put it best, accepting that you're in a doomed position should give you psychological strength, as there's not pressure on you to produce results, only on your opponent to prove their advantage is a winning one.

Ok well, I don't want to write a 20 page thesis on what it means to draw a game of chess.

I think it's assumed that the player is doing the best they can. There is no rule that survives "but what if the player isn't trying?"

In any case I already hedged this bet when I said "win easily." Notice this means I'm not saying to resign when you're lost. I'm saying to resign when (after careful analysis) you believe you're not only lost, but there's no hope (from desperate counterplay, fortress, the clock, or otherwise).

If chess were that easy then advice wouldn't be necessary.

"How to win N vs B endgame when you're ahead?"

"Don't just assume, prove to yourself the mate in 81 exists, then play the first move"

Ok, sure.

Chess is a board game that simulates a battle. The dynamics of the game and it's existence how it is bring about this idea of not resigning until mate. It's a war, at which point the losing side can squeeze a draw out of that war. 

People really shouldn't talk about whether it's acceptable to resign in a certain position. If you were able to outplay your opponent to the point where you think they should of resigned, then why not obliterate them and show them that they were wrong for holding onto hope? 

Again, chess is not the right game to expect people to resign before mate. 

Well, once was round 1 of a tournament. I wanted him to resign because he was 1800 and I'm a queen up on move 40 or so.

The round started around 9am, and round 3 was going to end at something like 8pm. So having 1 hour for lunch would have been nice.

But no, he decided to use all his time playing in a lost position, so I had to eat some gas station sandwich in 10 minutes and then sit down to play for another 6 hours in rounds 2 and 3.