Nobody resigns

This seems identical to the idea in match play golf of whether it is bad sportsmanship to not give your opponent a short putt. But in chess and golf if the win is so easy or putt is impossible to miss then just finish it. If there is some risk of failure then your opponent is justified. When you decide to play a chess game with someone your obligation for a win is to checkmate the enemy king. That you may win sooner by your opponent resigning is his prerogative, not yours.

Pretty good analogy. Not everyone concedes putts, and they aren't required to. Even the very best have missed important putts inside a foot. 

One thing we would never see though, especially at the highest levels, is anyone getting upset because their opponent did not concede a short putt. No matter how easy it is, they are expected to finish it. 

Sure, it is wrong to ask for resignation or expect one and get upset.  That in no way mitigates the fact that a lot of chess players today simply don't know when it is appropriate to resign, and more importantly *don't even see the point of it as chess etiquette*.

Part of it is the over emphasis on blitz and bullet where resigning takes as long as just playing it out, but another part is a bunch of kids (by which I mean anyone under 30) that were brought up to think they are special and have to strive on for glory in a completely optional and meaningless leisure activity.  These are same people you see at sporting events screaming "we're #1" and having a cow when the ref makes a call they don't like.  Because winning is the only thing that shores up their ego.

+1

Honestly, I have no idea why everyone has that perception that you have to be a gentlemen when playing chess, as if it's medival times and everyone is drinking tea and playing it while having a good time, the reality of situation is everyone wants to win, in every game there are dirty tricks and nobody ever says "oh he's so dirty" except in chess where everything you might dislike is considered dirty or bad sport, why you care if someone is bad sport, just move on do your thing and get those points. Top 2 threads are why nobody resigns and why everyone resigns, basically showing how both people are wrong and how they're extremists (1 thinks that if you are 1 pawn down GG YO and other one is like "hmm a queen and a rook down and I have 0 counterplay for lost material, I will continue something might happen").

I think at lower ratings, it is fair if they don't resign and wait for you to checkmate them as they have a fair chance of drawing by stalemate. The other winning side can take precaution and mate the player. Although, I agree it is a waste of time and players can resign if they have M3 or something like that. It until you get to the titled players you should resign (when having a good material disadvantages) and not play until mate, if you think there are no drawing chances, as they are generally very experienced and do not fall for stalemates and repetitive checks.(I do☻)

I agree with NikkiKristofer, playing those games don't help you. You will be just playing to complete the game even when you know the outcome like it is a mere formality. Sometimes, people say not to resign and look for stalemate tactics but I think they should also add when it may be possible.

@osfan37 what you are failing to realise is, you are complaining at someone for not resigning a lost position when you yourself didn't resign a lost position lol.

@nikkikristofer that's exactly why people don't resign. By making the position more complicated you encourage your opponent to play on.

I don't really mind as endgame practice is good and sometimes a stalemate can be blundered into.

@monsterchip playing a game to completion is not wasting time. I've won many games when losing and lost many game when winning. If everyone resigned the first time they lost a piece, no one would ever learn swindle.

Yes, you are correct. There is just one blunder needed from opponent and tables are turned again.

Exactly.

Here's another example, again no time pressure. But I blundered so figured there's every chance my opponent blunders as well, and they did. And it's a draw. 

I'm sure for every example like that you could post 10 examples of playing on and losing too.  An odd example is always easy to find!

It's an example that's just happened now that's why I posted it. The point is, had I resigned it would have been a game I lost by playing on it was a game I did not lose. Chess is all about moving pieces as best you can.

Lol

If I was your friend in a zombie apocalypse I'm afraid to inform you... you WILL STARVE