Lack of Respect?

Another point is that if you don't want or don't have time to play a game to the end, then simply don't accept to play a game. I mean, why accepting to play games if you don't have time.

If you want to stop the game when you have decided to, then you should maybe play against a computer.

as far as i know there is no rule that states you MUST concede at any point, right?

that being said,

what do you think of this game?

i think they are up to OVER 250 moves at this point...

I think the two players were just having a good conversation and hence kept playing a little.

And in my opinion it is very bad mannered not to resign a clearly lost position, but it is equally offensive to ask someone to resign.

Why is it bad mannered not to resign? Firstly you openely question your opponents chess skill (his ability to take a winning position to victory). And secondly you take away both your and your opponents time, and your opponent has no choice but to either waste his time on the decided game or resign himself.

However I think it's no problem to continue the game when you are having a conversation or when you say something that takes away the seeming disrespect for your opponent (for example "I think you won the game, but I want to continue it because I still have some ideas in mind / wanna try something out").

And to the people who say he has the right not to resign, isn't it obvious that this is a question about moral and not rights? In York (England) people also have the right to kill a scotsman when he carries a bow - but this doesn't make it morally right or far less reasonable.

Since no pawn moved and no piece was captured for more than 50 moves I guess it should already be a draw. I am surprised that this official rule was not automatically applyed to that game.

Am I right, that move 76 was the last capture?

I know that one has to _claim_ a 50 move rule draw... perhaps chess.com would allow the game declared a draw if white just clicked the draw button.

Hey Erik/staff: It would be cool if you implemented a knight+bishop mating course, complete with the ability to test your skill against various computer defenses, and various starting positions.

yes that would be very cool.  Chessmaster has a course, but the computer always goes straight for the corner, and then plays the passive defense.  Getting the king to the corner, and then the active defense are much trickier.  Maybe they should have a basic mates section, like N+B, 2B, 2R, R, Q, QvsR* , and maybe some basic defences, like drawn K vs K+P, and K vs RP and wrong bishop. 

*(probably way out of my league)

I have played against opponents who blunder away advantages, so i never resign until the positon is hopelessly lost. I have recently had abuse for not resigning early enough and I find it incredulous that people playing on this site are so impatient. I dont know if it is a case of 'rating junkies' who cant wait to see their score go up by 7 points, but I find it incredibly rude.  That said, I think playing a game out, despite facing an obvious defeat, is not the same as delaying a lost game so to try and keep your rating high for a while. At least two opponents have actually admitted to me that this is what they intend to do....'just to keep my rating up for a while'.

And i think I may move to York. thanks for the tip jackoneil!! 

This is from the rules section on the Chess.com site:

Draws

Occasionally chess games do not end with a winner, but with a draw. There are 5 reasons why a chess game may end in a draw:

1. The position reaches a stalemate where it is one player’s turn to move, but his king is NOT in check and yet he does not have another legal move
2. The players may simply agree to a draw and stop playing
3. There are not enough pieces on the board to force a checkmate (example: a king and a bishop vs. a king)
4. A player declares a draw if the same exact position is repeated three times (though not necessarily three times in a row)
5. Fifty consecutive moves have been played where neither player has moved a pawn or captured a piece.

Actually, the demand for resignations is a journey into a sense of personal superiority that should be displayed by winning/checkmate instead of declaring or expecting the other to recognize the superiority.  It is a subjective demand that has little or nothing to do with what the rules of chess demand.   Some of the possible conclusions of the game (as stated above) can only unfold as the game is played out to its bitter, challenging, time consuming end.......defeat by checkmate.  Or a stalemate, possibly because of the inability of the winning player to be able to construct this all important part of the game.   And, possibly these cries for resignation are because some find the energy and logic necessary to produce the checkmate is more laborious, tedious, and challenging than other more formulaic parts, like openings.  Checkmate is the point.  Not time spent in the trenches.  Defeat/dealing the battle ending combination is the duty of the winner, not a coin toss choice.  If the player with the inferior position will not resign, why isn't the chess warrior even more determined to deliver as swiftly as possible the winning force that he/she is claiming they possess and prove their superiority instead of declaring that it should be recognized? 

Here's another site's note on resignation.  Read the whole.

 You could spend the rest of your life trying to please the people on this site who insist that their opponent must resign at the exact instant they think it is appropriate. Or you could just play the game and try to learn. If it looks like you're losing, keep playing until you have nothing more to learn from that game, then resign if you don't want to keep going until there is a mate. But by no means should you allow the complainers to intimidate you from learning and playing.

Just try to improve. By the time you're good, you'll know when it's time to resign. 

i agree but i will say not all higher rated players are like that