Hey kids! Learn how to resign!

As long as they're not stalling it's fine. I don't know if I'd teach a kid to never resign, but it's not unreasonable.

And remember even though they have annoying kid habits they're still just kids, they can't help it. It's fine to be frustrated but don't make it about them.

I once encouraged an adult beginner to play on in a losing position against another adult beginner. The winning adult beginner had no idea that stalemate was a draw, and eventually stalemated the losing side in a position with this basic idea (and no other legal moves could be made in the actual position with a few more pawns).

I saw a kid save a half point against an adult like that because his coach trained him to never resign. The adult was up something like 20 points in material and accidentally stalemated the kid's king on e4.

I don't know if that sort of 1 in 100 occurrence makes it right, but the kid is probably saving other half and whole points because they're not giving up. If you trained a beginner to resign out of politeness they'd probably end up resigning right after they lost some material.

Kids, don't drink the lemonade!

Well, like a chess move you have to weigh the pros and cons. My main point was even if they only save 1 in 100 there are other points being saved you don't notice.

I agree!

OP is entitled.

As well as those who disagree!

   ---   Okay but perhaps also keep an eye on the fat lady  lol.

>At any level below about 1400, NEVER resign. <

At last, someone admits that never resigning is really a strategy just for beginners.  It follows that anyone who defends it for themselves is...still a beginner.

>And remember even though they have annoying kid habits they're still just kids<

Very true. I'll amend my original post to bark not at the kids, but at all the ADULTS in this thread who should know better.  "Never Resigning" is not what our chess heroes do.  And neither should we.

Selah, TMB 

I'm defending it for other people, not myself.  I resign regularly, and often too fast, but I'm not stupid enough to expect it of my opponent.  I choose to resign or not for various reasons, none of which include how it will make my opponent feel.  They agreed to whatever time control we are playing and thus to commit up to that much time to a game.  Once they have done that they are an irrelevance.

If they have demonstrated they know the technique needed to win, I resign.  If they haven't then of course I don't.

GMs don't resign because they're GMs, they resign because their opponents are GMs (usually) and they know that they have demonstrated an ability to win these positions.  If you are playing against some random bod you never played before you have no idea if they know how to mate with King and Rook unless you make them demonstrate it!

Also, our 'chess heroes' don't play 1500-level blunderfest chess either.  Neither should we.  We should quit the game entirely if we want to be like our 'chess heroes' because we never will be.

I agree

Glamdring27 puts it well. 

<Also, our 'chess heroes' don't play 1500-level blunderfest chess either.  >

True. What they do is agree on 9-move draws. See Nakamura, Millionaire Chess.  He never really bounced back from that. 

No reason to have pages and pages of comments when the whole thing can be (correctly) summed up in one short paragraph.

My personal experience is that people under 1800 or so still aren't good enough to always win when they should. There is such a high percentage of stalemates (and even losses) from good positions I always play until the end. But I like your response. It's just a choice. It's neither sporting nor unsporting.  It's like trading a knight for a bishop. It's just a choice and it doesn't make sense to call it "sporting" if someone does or does not do it.