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

I agree. This makes sense.

Noted.

 They were challenging themselves. In a game where there was nothing for them to think about they made it tougher to win (stalemate threats). Also they were rubbing your nose in a it :)

Roll with the punches and play another game.

I'm glad I posted this topic. I got a lot of good feedback and now I have a completely different perspective on what happened in my game. I've learned a lot about chess etiquette by reading the comments in this thread.

Some people don't know how to end an inevitable win.......Be sweet to thouse

morons.................................................................just joking: }

Speaking of rules/guidelines ...

A quick guide to the rules and etiquette of tournament chess - Compiled by Steven Craig Miller  http://www.ksca.us/FAQ/Quick_Guide.pdf

Resignation

• The proper way to resign a game is to either say “I resign” or by tipping over one’s king (§13B), one may then also stop both clocks.
• Then one should shake hands with one’s opponent, and congratulate him or her for a won game.
• It is rude and unsportsmanlike to abandon a lost position without resigning so as to allow your clock to run out of time (§20H1).
•  It is generally considered proper chess etiquette to resign clearly lost positions. The proper time to resign should vary with one’s chess ability. Most beginners should probably play on until they are checkmated. But more advanced players should resign clearly lost positions when they are certain that if they were on the other side of the position, they could beat even a master.

Funnily enough, FIFA (the controlling committee for football/soccer) is proposing to take a leaf out of FIDE's (the controlling committee for chess) book. It is proposing a rule change such that, under certain circumstances, when one side has a 9-point lead, the match is declared over. 

I have been coaching a lad recently at chess. Been commenting and watching the games he's been playing, and in a good handful of occasions, he has won by resignation in a position where I reckon there was a good chance of him not being able to go on and win it. Madness.

No more queen sacs then?

The above is an example where many people on here would say "outrageous, he should resign. Totally clear win, just not gentlemanly to play on" but is actually one of the sorts of positions that I would use to demonstrate where the heavily losing shouldn't resign.

A rundown of the reasons here:

1) White has few pieces left. This makes going for a stalemate a more achievable task. He can push his pawn until it's blocked, hope for a situation where his king cannot move, and then go kamikaze with the queen or rook, and BAM, draw.

2) Black has not managed to mate already. I doubt there wasn't a chance to, given the awful position white is in, which shows that his knowledge and eye for mating patterns may not be all that great. He will likely try to bludgeon the game out by force, taking every piece, then promoting to unnecessary queens, and finally mating. That spells a lot more play left in the game, and a lot more chances to blunder.

3) Black needs to play correctly from now on. White has nothing to play for really, so only needs to find one good move. While white's job may be impossible, if it is possible, it will actually be an easier job than black's. He should play on because he knows what to look for, and knows that if it does turn up, he can and will spot it.

4) Black WILL blunder, at some point, at some time, in a position like this. Black is not a grandmaster, nor a computer. He will get a similar clear-cut won position to the above thousands of times in his life, and so chances are, one of those times, he will slip up. Even if that seems very unlikely, someone out there is going to benefit from it at some point, so why not play on and see if it's you.

"Resigning etiquette" is a way for better players to control weaker players. Do not let that happen.

Isn't white about to be checkmated? The only thing I can see that would hold it off is the knight for one move.

After the knight moves, the king can go to f1.

A few points:

1) comparisions between other sports (like football) fail, at least in part because there is a RULE of game that says you play for 90 minutes, and no rule for resignation.

In anycase, if this rule were not in place we still probably wouldnt see resignations, mostly because there is money and fans in this game.


2) playing on/resigning is IMO rude depending on several factors: (a) significance of advantage (b) chances to draw, (c) time controls/remaining time, (d) ratings of both players, (e) ratings difference.

so for instance, say I a play someone 400pts lower than me, and I blunder a peice, I'll make them prove the win. If I get myself in a similar postion but with me the lower rated player, I shortly look to resign.


...as for a personal note, my approach is probably unique:  If I find myself paired with a stubborn oppenant, and happen to be up a rediculous amount of material I'll often just offer a draw (sometimes, due to time controls, this just involves me repeating the position or going for stalemate, 50 move) the reasoning is as follows:

I think to be up such material, know it, yet offer a draw anyway is both insulting and patronising (i intend to be) to your oppenant. To offer the draw robs them of any sort of self respect** or any idealisation that grit and determination pulled the game back from the brink. Rather, the draw is cheap and hollow, the points are meaningless.

its likely that often such a draw offer is misinterpreted, and might in fact encourage their behavoiur (I played on right to the end and look what I got, a draw!) but frankly I dont care, I do it anyways. If you want ratings point that badly, go ahead, take them, they mean nothing to me. 
 
Note: I've yet to do this in an Otb tourney (and probably never will), just online games.


** on a related note, I find it interesting that players find as justification to play on the reasoning "hey they might blunder", to which, the typical rebbuttal is "yes, but blunders are very unlikely". My response is the opposite: what if they do blunder and you win? --how would such a victory make you feel? If you are the type of person to take any satisfaction from such a victory then I genuinely feel sorry for you.  

To make an analogy: consider a boxing fight where after 4 rounds of being compleltly dominated the other guy deliberatly (and obvoiusally) punches himself really hard in the head, knocking himself out. Thus you win --- how does it feel to win such a match?
if it feels empty and hollow, and thus not worth it then you know what to do: resign after dropping the queen.  In general I think this principle offers you good guidence when you want to know when you should resign: imagine what victory would require (i.e your oppeanant to miss mate in 1 and then drop his queen) if that victory is still worth pursuing (not in terms of prize monney, in terms of 'self-respect') then go for it!, if not, resign.