isn't resignation a form of disrespect

No....

No doubt, soon someone will be starting a thread about how NOT resigning is a sign of disrespect.

Oh, wait, I think it's been done.

Always good to see the ghetto mentality in chess...WeRd...ReSpEcK

i have posted the "beating a dead horse" meme several times, but never the South Park one...thanks, will use this moving forward!

Funny enough. I got this one because I saw you post one when I first came to Chess.com.

And so it comes full circle.

that is awesome!

I don't think either is disrespectful. Some people think resigning is disrespectful and some don't. GMs often resign. Others who are learning want to practice the end game. What I propose is a feature whereby when you instantiate a game challenge, you have the option of choosing to only play people who agree that a player may mandate that his opponent resign if the opponent is down by at least X number of points. Similar to how one may mandate that the opponent they play be within a certain rating range, have no more than Y percent of time-outs, have a premium membership, etc.

lol. how ridiculous. so in come cases sacrifices that lead to mate will actually lose. Stupid.

In my total of ~10k internet games, I have had maybe 100-200 of non-resigners.

In my total of ~1k OTB casual games, I have had maybe 10-20 of non-resigners, most of which in blitz (like 10s left to mate with K+R vs K).

In my total of ~500 OTB tournament games, I have had exactly one non-resigner. That fantastic game went something like this:

Worse thing is that the guy looked at me after the game as if I was pointlessly wasting my time.

You've really played 10,000 casual OTB games?

No kidding? Are there also instances where someone has a positional advantage but is down material? I'm trying to keep everyone happy.

This paradigm would give one the option of playing with this feature or without. Another possible way to quantify whether resignation is appropriate would be to have the computer automatically use a chess engine to analyze, and if one person is down by X then the resignation could be mandated. Again, one could opt in or opt out, depending on their subjective definition of what is "ridiculous."

Misprint. I meant 1k (which might be an underestimation), post edited.

(Rough estimate, with 5 years at 5-10 games per week at the club.)

Also, realize that one may increase the value of X. Kewl it with the verbal abuse. You are calling names when you haven't even thought this through.

this very stupid idea will solve what problem? winning a chess game is about being able to mate, not being up "points". This idead is unoriginal...many beginners like yourself have brought this up. It is still INCREDIBLE stupid, no matter how many beginners begin threads about it. You are number 237, and it is still stupid.

Not trying to be mean....YOU are not and idiot. Your IDEA is idiotic, and unoriginal. yawn.

Quite the opposite.  Refusing to resign a hopeless position is a sign of disrespect.  It is a clear statement that you believe your opponent is a dolt who cannot convert a clear win.

If a chess engine states a player is down by X, the engine is not referring to material points.

There's the problem.

Actually, just because it is clear that one side will win does not mean that the remainder of the game will only take a short time to play.  I once played a game where I had a forced mate in 4 or 5 moves, but it took over 2 weeks to complete (partially because my opponent always took the maximum time to make each move).  Because I am not a premium member, I am only allowed to play in one tournament at a time, and hence my opponent's insistence on playing out a lost position prevented me from joining another tournament for several weeks.  Not the end of the world but definitely an inconvenience.

Even in "real time" chess, as in an USCF tournament, a 2 move checkmate could still last an additional 2 hours potentially if the opponent inists on using all of his/her time.  In some cases, the evening rounds could last until from 6 pm midnight if your opponent is stubborn and refuses to resign.

Think what you want. Hopefully, my opinion of you does not matter to you. I think you are an idiot.

It's mean to win? So if I take a person's rook instead of their queen, is that supposed to be showing mercy or something? Strange that one decides to, voluntarily, play a game where your goal is to defeat your opponent (not help them) as a way of symbolizing how much they care about the person they are playing against.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if a person's first thought when they are in a bad position is to give their opponent even more material (not).

As for the argument about symbolizing you think your opponent is good at chess: it jumps to conclusions. I can believe with near certainty (note not 100% certainty -- given our mental fallibility, true 100% certainty is tough, though we can come close) that I will lose but feel no risk in playing a few moves -- if something unexpected happens it can only help me. Hell I could even play on with bad moves -- if I blunder again it's not like I had much to lose anyway. I resign when I'm comfortable. Let people have their comfort level. Even if you are certain that you will win, your opponent may be in a different psychological state; and since it's their choice, respect their personal comfort level for when to resign, even if it's different, or very different, from yours.

Don't, of course, play on only with the motivation of your opponent being upset -- for example those people who run out the clock when they are lost not because they want to think that long, but because that way the win will take a few minutes longer, or maybe the opponent will log off and you can then sneak in and make your move. That's just disgusting.