A Question of Honor

Around Chess.com there seems to be some question about whether it is better to resign when you know you are going to lose, or keep on playing.  Personally, I prefer to play to the bitter, bloody end, and try not to resign.  However, some people would call this dishonorable and unfair to the other player.  My thoughts are that it really isn't dishonorable or unfair to the other player because in the end I'm just as dead, and he also has the satisfaction of a Checkmate (something I find far more satisfying then a resignation).

This is just my humble opinion.  It would be interesting to see every one else's thoughts on the subject.

I find the better players resign earlier. They know when they are lost, and they know depending on your rating you wont blow it. Also the time controls.

Then it also depends on the amount of counterplay. Piece down in a symmetrical position, it's probably over. Piece down in a muddy position with lots of imbalances where there may be promotions it may be worth carrying on.

I'm playing a game now where I won their queen in the first 10 moves and they are playing on. It's 100% pointless, and we can't learn a thing.

But then I've also played games where I thought my opponent should have made me prove the win.

To be fair to the OP and Michael, they're both at ratings where it's probably reasonable to play a position to the end.  As you start playing stronger opponents though, it just stops being worth your time to not resign when you know that you're lost.  Better to just end the game so you can instead use your time figuring out how to not make the same mistake again.

When you're down and out, maybe your time's better spent regrouping and playing a fresh game. If you're interested to see how the loss unfolds, then play it out, but if you hang your queen on the 10th move or see you're facing a forced mate, well, you're waisting your time :0)

It depends on the situations, but usually when I realize I've mane a serious mistake and the other person has taken advantage of it, I resign.

There is a good reason to keep playing. It is good training! So you lost a piece, why not train your defensive skills and see how you can make it the most difficult. Or maybe you can get an attack going. After all K+B vs K doesn't mate. Of course if you're playing against a much higher rated player it is even better. He wants you to just resign and maybe gets mad that you don't. Good! Maybe he will be more prone to make errors! :)

There is nothing fair or honorable about the game. It's war! Off the board that is a totally different matter but the game itself... anything goes!

I played a game against a man who used to be a master but as he got old his strength decreased. I won a game against him ending with a pawn ending. Apparently he know how to easily win the game but I didn't so I made many mistakes. I still won because I had so many pawns and finally converted one to a queen and I got to mate him. I shook his hand and he said in a mad voice that I had embarrassed myself by playing the endgame so poorly. 

He played on because he could see that I had a hard time figuring out what to do in that position and he got mad when his efforts didn't pay off. 

i'd have to agree most with this. with me, with 1500 rating, most players should play to the end. unless the advantage is huge (Q vs N or B or the like). i'm particularly weak at end games but still, a pawn or two advantage isn't always a clear win bcz I only mediumly know what I'm doing in endgames (hence the 1500 rating) and make plenty of mistakes.

I'm starting to make my equal or lower-rated opponents play on to try to get more draws when I'm losing. make them prove the win (from scottrf's post).

I usually try to resign only when it's obvious I can't win, or am already quite lost.  or in disgust after a terrifyingly bad move.

I think this is true, and I would include myself. Don't get me wrong, a major blunder still usually results in resignation. But, I've also played many games to the end when one player has only a slight advantage (I'm only 1500). I've also had games with those I'm either friends or friendly with where we decide we would both like to work on endgame.

In online chess, Please resign. We are only allowed so many games at once. There is no pointin even playing, when 15 of your games are clearly won, but your opponent wont resign, so you have to spend the next 5 months playing them out.

This isn't honor. This is just common consideration.

at the top level of the game, a player may decide they've been outplayed and like to admit it and resign, they may feel it is honorable, proper etiquette, or a waste of time to continue. i've seen a 2200+ rated player resign in a won position, thinking he was lost (missed a forced win at the other end of the board). at lower levels, there will be numerous mistakes throughout the game and many opportunities to get back in the game (also higher rated players should be patient with a player genuinely wanting to learn and continues to play). also at the lower levels you have total bozos that string out a ridiculous position for ages and i've no idea why they bother to play, while at higher levels it's kinda stupid to keep playing, like in the Svidler-Radjabov game in the Candidates.

in an online game, the correspondence time controls can be a total pain in the butt if you get matched up with a nutcase, where games don't get adjudicated.

Honor has nothing to do with it.  (This is internet chess for crying out loud!)  It's a question of wasting time (both yours and your opponent's).  I usually wait to resign until I see a clear path for my opponent to checkmate me.  At that point it's usually not worth wasting the time to play it out, unless I see a trap that I might be able to catch him with.

It depends on the individual if he's playing on to be a prick to the bitter end to spite his opponent for no good reason that's dishonourable speaking for myself if I know my opponent has a beautiful finish in 5-8 moves in OTB chess I'll play the rest of it out I will not deny them if they won fair and square and worked hard for the win.

I'll shake his or her hand and lose graciously if I were playing online I'd do the same thing.

I play almost exclusively online chess, so even at my rating of 1588, there are some things I know that the OTB player or live player may not know.

First, I've been playing this opponent for days or weeks, so I have a pretty good feel for how he handles the board. If I've developed a lot of respect for his play up until I'm seriously behind, then I retain enough respect for his play not to imagine that he's going to blow it at the end. Today I resigned a game where I had a pair of doubled pawns and one isolani, plus a bishop and rook, against his two rooks and two connected passed pawns on each side of the board. I could have fiddled around a little more, but I knew that he knew what to do, and any more play was a waste of time.

On the other hand, I finally today got a resignation from an opponent who was 21 points behind in the piece count! He had early on lost his queen and then a rook, then a few pawns, etc. His king was exposed, and I was just playing on autopilot, wondering what he could possibly be thinking. Finally he threw in the towell.

In both instances, I'm sorry, but playing on to the bitter end wouldn't have been honorable; it would have been arrogant and stupid. Neither player learns anything from an ending where it's just a matter of mopping up, and the winner ends up with nothing but contempt for his opponent. He never thinks, "My, what an honorable chap that was."

I think its good training to keep playing until the bitter end. 

A suggestion I like to throw into these threads, which I think is reasonable, goes like this:

Resign when
1)  You believe your position is lost
2)  You believe your opponent knows it is lost, and can convert it without difficulty and
3)  You understand the basic method they can use to win the game.

Sometimes 1 and 2 are true, but if you're new and #3 is not satisfied then you can learn something by sticking around.

Sometimes 1 and 3 are true, but either because your opponent's rating or because the potential counterplay in the position (or both) you should stick around... as we all know it's not always easy to win a won game.  Sometimes it's quite difficult!

Waffle, your points make sense, but that also brings us back to sunofthemorninglight's post-the rating of the players goes a long way in determining when one should resign. For example, I've been in (your post) numbers one and three, but won because of exactly what you state. I would be willing to bet I've also been the one that didn't realize I had such a good position and lost.

The strength of the players has to be considered when discussing when is the correct time to resign.

Resign at the point when you could take your opponent's position, Kasparov could take yours, and you would feel comfortable that you would win.

@ AlCzervik
I tried to make my post spell out what goes on when the strength of the players is taken into account... which is basically #2.  I think we agree.

In Online Chess speeds sometimes players who were moving at a fast or regular clip will reach a lost positon and then all of a sudden begin playing very very slowly.  They aren't wanting to see his technique, they are hoping to somehow win on time - hoping their opponent will have to eventually quit playing, or will choose to quit playing his games, or will somehow miss making a move within the time limit. 

If you can stand looking at dead lost positions over and over again you'll probably get some draws and maybe even wins out of every 100 lost games depending on your opponents strength, the stronger the opponent, the less chances for you to salvage draws much less wins. As far as all this "honorable and unfair" crap goes you can just ignore that there is no rule that says you have to resign at all, you can play every game out until you're checkmated if you like. If your opponents are offended they can either block you from being paired with them again or go back to the 14th-century and become a Knight in shining armor if they're that interested in honor and fairness.

Eventually you'll either get sick and tired of playing out lost games until you're mated, or you won't. Around here it's not such a bad idea in turn-based games since a fair amt of players here will forfeit games that would've been draws or even wins for them