Rules re Asking for Resignation

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine.

In correspondence play , not OTB  right ?  

Wow I thought you were kidding so I looked. I Can't believe he didn't resign way before you checkmated him. I guess it is his right but what a waste of time :) Good game.

I think teachers/coaches should also teach their students tournament chess ettiquette . If they refuse to resign ever they certainly are not gonna make any friends among the chess playing community and will more likely make some enemies .  Another solution would be to not let really young kids play among adults , there are so many scholastic events these days they would still be able to play plenty .... I know some adults who no longer play tournament chess because they can's stand the kids and in some cases , their parents !  I have seen a parent come to the board and set up everything for their child and even help them fill in their scoresheet .... I am sorry but if they cant even set their stuff up maybe they shouldnt be playing among adults ? 

I totally get it...people want to practice the endgame. I need a lot of practice in that. However, at a certain point it becomes ridiculous. Reminds me of that Monty Python movie where the knight gets both his arms and both his legs severed and say it is just a flesh wound and continues to try to fight. When someone who is, say, a USCF Expert grants me a game and they clearly have me beaten, I don't force them to play it out unless we talk about it and it is sort of like a lesson and they are doing it as a favor. Otherwise, guess what? They won't have anything to do with me any longer.

It is his right to play it out, however.

Practice an ending where you have a K vs K+Q ?  Thats the kind of stuff you practice at home against a computer or your coach but NOT in an otb event where you may have precious little time between rounds to grab a sandwich before the next round . 

The last time someone asked me to resign I won. It was pretty hilarious.

If it's online, I'll message the person afterwards and say "Learn to resign when beaten."  Then I block them or otherwise refuse to play them again.  If it's an in person tournament I just refuse to kibitz with them when they ask.  When they get offended, I explain to them, "You used up all my kibitzing time by not resigning when you should have, and now I need to leave."  They can be offended or not, I don't really care, but I guarantee you they never forget it.  

Again, a wise coach will advise their students not to resign. For beginning to mid level players, every game is a learning experience. Resigning too early denies them the opportunity to learn.

If your expectation is that your opponents should resign from losing positions, then you should only play against high level players, who don't have anything to gain by playing on.

I have to play whoever I am paired against in an OTB event and I am not talking about just losing positions but ridiculously lost positions like lone K v K+Q . They can have their learning experience against their wise coach at home or practice such endings on their computers at home . 

No. It depends.

A beginner playing another beginner...sure. Makes sense. You get some practice in endgames, and your opponent might draw.

If you are a coach who advises someone who is, say, 1700 to not resign against a 1950 when he is down to a King v. some pawns, a Queen, and a Rook....then you are a lousy coach.

In many youth chess events K+Q v. lone K is not hopelessly lost. Draws are frequent.

If they would let me play in the youth categories I wouldnt complain about them playing on either .... 

Has anyone noticed that the people wanting to tell their opponents to resign are generally rated under 1600?

I don't think that's a coincidence. 

I bet at least twenty people have asked me to resign while playing on the Internet. It's weird.

No, it's not a coincidence. The obvious reason is because people who are newer to chess, or rated lower, are typically playing a pool of people that comprises a relatively high percentage of players who don't know when it is rude to not resign. You are 2200+. Ergo, your opponents presumably know better. What's your point Smylov?

I was asked to resign once after blundering a piece. It was in an OTB tournament & it was done politely. I think my opponent just wanted to get a coffee & go to the analysis boards ......... but about 5 moves later I had him in perpetual check & got a draw & 1/2 a point.

I have always wondered if he lost concentration when he asked for the draw because he should have been able to defend against the perpetual check & win if he was as good as his rating suggested.

Or they are an admin of the "Vote Chess Trolls". A group whose dedicated purpose is to make bad moves deliberately in vote chess and then not resign.

However impossible the game might've become for your opponent, there may well be value in them persisting in order to gain further end game experience. The fact that there's nothing for you to gain by having to play through to the finish doesn't mean that there's nothing to gain for them!

Obviously it's a polite gesture to resign when you are in a lost position, but this should never be taken as a given. The obligation is still with the winning player to finish off the match. It should never be taken as granted in chess that the losing player should resign, simply because to continue might be viewed as an inconvenience by their opponent!

Generally though, I would agree that there's little point in continuing from extreme situations such as K+Q v lone K in the context of tournament play.

As I said, beginning to mid level players should not be expected to resign automatically from a losing position, not when they might have something to learn by continuing.

However, I would personally not class a 1700 rated player as a "beginning to mid level player". I would class them as a highly experienced, upper level player.

Generally, I might expect a 1700 player to resign against a 1950 player in a lost position, yes. It shouldn't necessarily be an obligation, but it would certainly be polite.

However, I think this is largely irrelevant for the majority of games and players. The vast majority of people who play chess regularly are not rated at 1700 or above. They are rated somewhere between 1000 - 1400. That's certainly the case with the majority of people who play regularly on this site.

We should not expect the same kind of etiquette  from lower to mid level players playing casual chess over the internet as we should from top level players playing professional tournament chess. Most of us are not top level players, and most of us are not playing in professional tournaments. Many of us are still hoping to learn and progress; something that we will not do if we persist in resigning in lieu of playing out the end game.

In top level tournament play, then OK - maybe different standards should be expected. But we're not doing that here.