Can we get an option to play No Resign Games?

I really wish I could play games where you can't resign just because you don't think your going to win.

I just started playing online and I hate people resigning before the game is finnished, especially when you spend 8 minutes building your attack only to have the game stopped once the person thinks it isn't in their favour.

Chess isn't about winning it's about learning new strategies to better your game.

Winning is a culmination of a lot of losing.

The end game is where you learn the most, especially when your on the back foot.

Can we please have an option to have games that can't be resigned unless both players agree?

So you're expecting me to play an endgame a queen down? That's a waste of my time and my opponent's.

Most people really hate losing.

When people resign, it is usually a sign of their coming to terms with the conclusion that they have no reasonable hope.

Beginners like to play games to the bitter end, because they haven't played enough to learn how predictable things get in certain positions. 

And in one out of one hundred games, their opponent slips and gives up a stalemate.

Was that worth the five hours they spent playing out the other 99 games?

Most people say no.

haha, resignation not accepted...

What's worse is being so rude to someone because of how they would prefer to play a game.

Every tournament game should end with capture of the king. Then decapitation with a micro-guillotine and a collective bonfire of captured kings at the end of each round. This would also boost the sale of chess pieces, particularly kings. Problem solved.

Actually, chess is different things to different people.

To some people, chess IS about winning and losing, and that's the extent of it.

I watched a documentary from the 80's about chess in Washington Park in NYC.

One of the local rules was that you didn't have to say 'check'. And if your opponent doesn't see it, you werea allowed to capture his king.

This, to me, seems more natural than the current rules. The current rule, like some of the other rules in chess, seem to have been made by uptight players who wanted to try and lessen their blunders through legislation.

In online chess or even live chess, the only thing you'll get by "No resign" rule is more people will abandon their games if they think they are going to lose, which somewhat make the problem worse. 

Sounds like Bob's gotta a bit of a frustrated sadistic streak.

I hope you get your option.  Expect to spend a lot of time waiting for moves from players who have stopped playing and gone on to some other activity but your game shows they're still there because it won't let them resign.

Just find some like minded folk and play with that condition.

I would rather play a you disconect you lose game 

How about a "no checkmate" option.

I see what your saying. I think I should have clarified that I was talking about 10-15 minute long games not ones that drag out for hours where it feels like your trying to battle a glacier.

Also not saying that this should be the mandatory rule (which would be ridiculous) but would like it as an option for quick games.

Well, I think resigning is precisely a prove of good chess-playing... Players who don't know when to resign, is precisely what they should learn...

You don't have to crush your opponent if he knows when to resign...

I think resigning is one of the jewels of chess...

That would be cool !....Have a fun tournament where you play an 8-game RR w/ 9 players. You receive 8 x [no. pieces for 8 games]....Except the King - you only need one. Every time a piece is captured it can never return to play (make them outta chocolate !). So, toward the end of the tourney, with less than the board setup, you equip your side w/ what pieces remain. If e.g., (1) knight, you choose where it'll begin (i.e., b1 or g1). It's death match play....the last one standing wins.

One problem: How to handle promotions........

No resigning and finish them off by clearing their board while maintaining your army....(this's beginning to sound like another one of my dumb brainstorms (because it is !).... 

The funny thing is, top chess players are not immune from the sentiment of not wanting their opponent to resign. R. Byrne once resigned a game against Bobby Fischer on move 22 in a position that seemed better for him to all the spectators, and Fischer called it 'a bitter disappointment'. Go figure. :)

In my own games, I occasionally see players resign in positions that are not obviously won, at least to me. Positions where I'm doing well, but still have some defenses to break down, and not quite sure how that is going to happen. It's good to win, but part of me was looking forward to the challenge of finishing the job.

Instead of resigning you'd be waiting 10 minutes for my flag to drop. Have fun!