Isn't rude to prolong a game when checkmate is inevitable?

I don't think its rude for anyone rated under 1600 to fight on. That's how you learn. If the stronger side player is any good they will just checkmate them anyway. I think players rated under 1600 should not resign unless they see forced mate a move or two away. I usually don't unless I see its hopeless.

Yes, amongst strong players, when one side gets a decisive material advantage, its often cause for resignation because they aren't really going to make big blunders in the endgame and it will be very hard for the weaker side to pull it out. Players at the beginner/intermediate level should play to win. If you see it is truly lost, then resign. Thats my opinion on it. I sont think its rude, I think it is forcing the win by your opponent. I dont play chess to quit, I play to have fun and learn, and hopefully sometimes...to win.

Apologies. Language differences with regards to football. In association football, the fans tend to expect a team to get up and fight even when they're 3-0 down. The culture associated is totally "play to win" and that's what makes it fun to watch.

Who was being rude in this case?   Chess players can be really pathetic over this game.  Time was put on the clock.  Everyone should at least be willing to give the players the allotted time to finish the game.  No matter what the position.  This kind of behavior is what I despise about chess players who think they're so superior that everyone should KNOW what they know.  They make the game all the more difficult to learn.

 NM Reb said:

But in football resigning is NOT an option. However, when one side is blowing out the other side dont they pull their "starters" and let second stringers get some experience ?  I see this in every game that could be considered a " blowout" .

In fact, the only other competition I know of in which there is an option to resign is snooker, but that seldom happens and only when the opponent's lead is considerable.

OK, I think that all would agree that a "blowout," as you put it, is any game in which, for example,  a lone king is pitted against a king and rook or queen, or where the current position must quickly and inevitably lead to this.  Otherwise - and especially at the sub-expert level - sudden inaccuracies or brilliancies could lead to a change in outcome. And at any rate, what's so terrible about having the opportunity to demonstrate that you know how to give checkmate?

What's so terrible about having the opportunity to demonstrate that you know how to achieve walking by putting one foot in front of the other?

And Boxing too, which gives us the phrase "throwing in the towel"

Along these lines, has anyone truly statistically analyzed CM/NM/FM/IM/GM-level games to determine the percentage of missed 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-move tactics/combos/mates? 

I feel like I read about missed 3-move mates/combos every now and again and some blundered endgames at the hight levels, though no hard statistics.

A few people responding are missing the second part of your question: when checkmate is inevitable.

Ivanchuk recently prolonged a drawn endgame against Kramnik in frustration because he had misplayed a win. They were playing blindfold, and played way past 100 moves, when it was really over a long time ago. That wasn't rude, but it was futile, and maybe they had fun seeing how long they could go without making a mistake, while playing blindfold.

If your second condition holds - mate is inevitable - then it can be seen as rude if your opponent isn't in on your terms. You could be a novice, who actually would benefit from getting mated, to gain better understanding. And even the person who is up might benefit from playing it through to the win.
One of the best training exercises I know of, is to take a resigned position from master and GM-games, and playing it through to the win. It's harder than you'd think sometimes.

But if you're playing someone you don't know, that you've just met in an OTB tournament or on the net, then you might want to tell them that you'd like to play it through to the end, if they don't mind, since you're learning.

If not - it could be perceived that you're hoping for them to make a silly mistake, when you're actually as out of the game as the knight in the Monty Python movie who keeps insisting he can fight, in spite of having had his legs and arms hacked off ....

When I'm through playing in a tournament or on the net, I always go through all the games I've won through resignations, setting the final position up on my computer, and playing the position through to the win against the computer - just to make certain I have the skills required if I should meet someone who refuses to acknowledge the obvious.

Fight on, even with all your pieces gone, fight on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Didn't a great man once say that no game was won by resignation? If you have time on your clock, it's your right to play on until checkmate (or stalemate if you get lucky).

But, grivei, who's being rude when people "comment loudly 'what an idiot'" and laugh derisively? Bottom line: The object of the game is checkmate. Every player has the right to test his opponent's knowledge. To quote IM Silman again, "Treat everyone you play with a touch of contempt!"

I don't care (and I urge others not to care) about what people "expect" of me (them). This is exactly what Okolo complained of: a select few having their own set of snobbish conventions, so that they can look down on those who don't follow them because they don't know them. It is elitism, it is dogma, and it is rubbish. Mating with two Bishops (which, you can argue, is not difficult) is still much harder than mating with a Queen and two Rooks, by comparison; and some people, sure enough, don't know how to do it.

Your then-six-year-old opponent (with whom I greatly empathize by now) should most definitely not have resigned, because the results of games between youngsters, more than any others, are notorious for swinging either way, regardless of material advantage. Imagine yelling at a 6-year-old, "Hey, stupid! Resign!" Let the kid play it out! At such a young age, he, most of all, can surely benefit from learning about the most basic of mating patterns.

That's a good rule of thumb.

In Backgammon they use a doubling cube. You agree to play for double the stakes, or admit that you are lost.

I guess that's where I get my attitude to resigning. If you dont quit when you're down, you'll lose more than you would have.

Every situation is different.  If I'm playing against someone who blunders away a piece early in the game, then later on, comes back like a lion and starts kicking my butt, there's no way I'm going to resign.  If they made a mistake once, they certainly might make a mistake again, especially if they start thinking they're bulletproof and try to harass me into resigning.

The way I feel about resigning is best summed by this philosophy:  Be a gentleman throughout the game.  Most people will pick up on the fact that you are at ease and playing with confidence, and when they know you have control of the game, they will resign not because there's a protocol that says when to resign, but because they know that you have won, and they have lost, and they really believe it.

Same same here.

I personally resign when I drop a piece, and I appreciate players who do the same.

In this case, I'd have to say that the fairest ruling is that either BOTH players were rude, or NEITHER player was rude. If you feel you have the right to "play it out to the bitter end, make your opponent prove they can mate you, and/or hope for the 0.0001% chance that they misclick/disconnect/blunder/whatever and stalemate you", then you have to respect the opponent's right to play whatever legal moves that he or she sees fit. You can't have it both ways!

You have the option to not resign and play on, but don't complain as long as your opponent is making legal moves :p

There is no cut-and-dry answer for this question. It all depends.

OTB play is totally different...and obviously, if you are playing against a GM you should do the right thing.

But the OP was referring to CC. Here, your rating says nothing about you. We don't know you from Adam. There are no other players looking over your shoulder...etc...so it's totally different Reb.

If you want to play on...by all means do so...but the other player has the right to also play on...this is fair.

I recently played a game, where in the end my opponent had his king and 2 pawns, against my king, queen, 3 passed pawns. I had him trapped on one rank while I proceeded to run one pawn to the 7th rank (8th rank-queen would be mate...he did not resign), so I proceeded to run my other 2 pawns to the 7th rank...before I promoted to queen and checkmate. He made his decision, and I made mine.

Once you play within the rules...no problem.

Nothing like a good old resigning thread. 

 well I just want to keep it simple, couldn't be bother with this thread really but to the OP she/he has right to continue to the end to "learn", hoping for stalemate "maybe" bla bla etc. etc.....I could go on you see so what the point ?