Asking people to resign

Resigning is the option of the opponent, if he wants to play more, why not, there is a timeframe for every move,and its your turn to move after his, Its the opponent judgement when to resign not yours. Asking your opponent to resign is immoral. Why have you not lost? Who are you in the chess-world.

The only time I would consider it, is if someone is obviously dragging out the game AND it's holding up a tournament. Other than that, I would never do so myself, though I do like the reply "To the Kings!" I have used that one a few times myself. :P

Everyone has the right to play as long as they want. You can finish the game by finding mate asap

Nobody ever has tried asking the opponent to "please play it out until mate".

Pure ignorence to demand the other to resign!

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  although the temptation may be there, I strongly believe you should never ever ever ask a person to resign. he or she has his or her reasons for playing the way he does.  if i don't like my opponent's strategies, I just don't play them again.  asking for someone to resign? I don't think so but I understand the other side of this. 

I have found this thread an interesting read through. As I have said elsewhere, I learned to play casual/rainy-day-stuck-indoors chess about 30 years ago and never knew about clubs and tournaments and etiquette and rules... so I never heard of resignation until a few weeks ago, when I took up the game again. We just didn't know any better than to just play until the game was over.

As a rank amateur, I learn from every single game I play. I have "won" an unrated game here on chess.com because my opponent resigned on me, and I felt very put out by that -- I didn't know that he was actually being polite to me by doing so... but... It didn't feel that way to me. I thought he was being petulant or showing impatience with me as a beginner. He didn't send me a message or communicate anything to me; I just logged in one morning to see the game was over. It didn't feel like a win, or that I had learned all I could have. I could see I had a strong position -- but was it truly an absolutely winnable one? How can I now know? Would I not have learned more and been more satisfied if I had either seen how a stronger player pulled back from a weak position to checkmate me? or if I could figure out how to reach mate without a series of awkward or clumsy or repetitious moves? I will never know. And I feel cheated, to be honest.... I guess I would have only felt worse if I had been the one asked to resign!

While I can understand suggesting politely (maybe something like "shall we not bother taking this game 'to the Kings' and just start another?") if a tournament is being held up unreasonably, or if the two players really are highly rated and skilled enough that it is clear when a game is lost (no one is likely to make an error of judgement that their opponent can capitalise on, say). But in any other circumstances, I cannot see how calling for someone else to resign is either good manners or good chess.

I suppose how one looks at the issue of asking another to resign (or, even, receiving someone else's resignation) is purely a sign of how you view the game and what you want from playing.

Once I was having a look at the games archive of a strong opponent of mine and I happened to run into a lost game of him against a much weaker player. Intrigued, I examined it and found that the advantage of my strong opponent increased move by move... until at a certain moment he simply resigned! Why the hell you would resign a clearly won game???, at first I asked myself. Then I realized the (probable) genius in that: maybe he was bored by the game, having it lost all its meaning, and seeing his opponent wasn't going to resign, he simply did it himself to end it!

Now I think the lesson is: we should be here to learn playing chess and have fun, not to quickly win games, raise our rating or be unpolite with our opponents, asking them to resign.

The player may have run out of vacation and resigned a game he knew he would lose on time, to avoid a timeout.

The player may have been intentionally resigning so as to qualify for a tournament based on rating.

The player may have hit the wrong button.

The player may have been resigning the game to complete a tournament that he was going to win anyways, so he could enter another tournament.

in my opinion no one should ask another to resign, that should b up to THAT person.

I probably wouldn'y resign a game K vs K+B+N because not everybody knows how to mate.

It is definately bad manners and not acceptble bahavior in chess to ask somebody to resign in a serious game or tournament. But with friends or when I play with my son I often joke with "why

don't you resign or time to resign" So it all depends. 

Yes, it's rude to ask people to resign.

Chess is so clearly a social activity - even over the internet - that it seems very strange to me to read the comments here of people who do not think it extremely rude to ask an opponent to resign.  I play chess for the mental challenge, for the joy of its revealed beauty, and for the pleasure of interacting with players from all over the world.  I would urge everyone here to be considerate of those who agree to play with us. 

In no other sport or game I know if is resigning or quitting encouraged or expected.  I know I've seen some contests where I wish they could... football 60-0 in the first half..   In chess, the person playing does not need to regard the other player what-so-ever in his decision to play-on or resign.  I was taught that you resign only when you are bored with the losing position.  If you are winning and bored and wish that your opponent would resign, i think you might need to give up chess.

 The second reason you list is sandbagging and is downright offside.

I prefer to play until check mate is achieved by either side.  I don't mind at all if my opponent wants to play until the end.  It gives me good practice on honing my end game skills which need a lot of work for when I play those that have surgically picked off every piece that I have to the point that makes me just want to pick up the king and jab myself in the eye with it.  Besides, this is correspondance chess on a site that has no limit to how many games you can play.  It's not like you have to wait on that game to finish before you can start another one. 

1)  I would never ask an oppenent to resign.

2)  If being destroyed, I will resign.  There are games that become hopeless and from which there is nothing left to learn OTB.  They never reach an endgame.

3)  If losing (even clearly and obviously), I will almost never resign (at least until it reaches 'obvious even to a fool' status).  If I am going to lose I want to learn more about how play as stiff a defense as possible.  More importantly, I want to see the moves and combinations that finish me off.

     3A)  It is with no disrespect that I do not resign these lost games.  It is with full respect.  Most oppenents understand.  A few have pretty bad attitudes if you don't quit when they think the time is right.  These aren't the sort that I want to be playing very often anyway.

4)  Good point earlier about playing out K vs K + B + N.  Your opponent has only 50 moves to seal the deal or it is a draw.  I may not make them play it to mate, but will play through at least 'proof of technique'.  It only takes a couple of minor errors to botch this forced mate.  I've seem some really good players blow this basic endgame.  There a lot of strong players that work hard on openings, followed by combinations and traps, and expect to have such a strong position that they win a ton of games from resigning players.  These players often have weak endgame skills.

5)  I have played many games where I wish that my oppenent would resign; situations where they can't possibly be learning anything but play hopeless games all the way to mate.  I just adjust my mindset and finish them as efficiently as possible.

6)  If an opponent drags out a game just to drag it out, we won't play again if they are a fair bit lower rated.  If a fair bit higher rated, I'll give them another go - working under the assumption that they are better than I am and worth losing to next time (or worth beating again).

7)  I don't mind losing - but I do expect to see proof of endgame technique, and if I can learn some more of it myself at the same time, then it is foolish to resign too soon.

    I'm easy. I get down 2 or 3 material "points" without compensation and I'm going to resign the game. I've always preferred to play with intensity Before getting staggered ... unless sac'g deliberately. Of course about 70% of my corr games have been sacrificial by at least one player or the other. Sharp openings or positions assessed as "unclear" tend to maximize opportunities for errors.