I've mentioned this in other threads, but will repeat it here.
I usually resign when I know that I could flip the board 'round and beat Magnus Carlsen. Exceptions are when my opponent has asked me to resign.
Sometime I resign sooner.
If a player does not resign against me, I may choose to practice knight and bishop against lone king.
This topic always brings out the worst in everyone. It seems "when to resign" is a more important subject than "how to play chess".
Chess is the only game I know in which the greatest crime is to not give up.
It's disgraceful.
I resign if I'm losing only when I respect my opponent. Not when I outplayed him the whole game and blundered.
There have been more discussion forums at this website about resigning than there have been about any other aspect of the game. Except maybe cheating.
Hey, let's talk about cheating! 
What a stupid question!!
So, to summarize what we have learned:
A) Never play chess with peope who don't know when to resign.
B) Always resign when it's time.
C) When you're not sure, ask your opponent.
i think its rude to ask for resignation since both players have agreed on the timelimit before the game and there is always a small chance to blunder. on the other hand i see people play on until they are mated in next move and then let the time run out and stuff like that and thats REALLY annoying
That doesn't make sense. If they are checkmated the game is over.
i mean situations where no matter what move they do you mate them on the next move, but instead of moving so you can mate them they wait out the time
Just play until they checkmate you. Opponents have to prove it...
i think its rude to ask for resignation since both players have agreed on the timelimit before the game and there is always a small chance to blunder. on the other hand i see people play on until they are mated in next move and then let the time run out and stuff like that and thats REALLY annoying
No one cares what you think.
Why simply not set conditional moves/premoves and move on? :)
if you dont care about what people think then dont create threads and expect answers
if you dont care about what people think then dont create threads and expect answers
OK. I promise not to create any threads from now on since you asked. Note my question what only what the rules were. It turned into a debate somehow.
Chicken: That was a bit rude..Just saying.
Kaynight: I officially request that you resign in our next match. I am asking this before it even happens.
How was that?
Why simply not set conditional moves/premoves and move on? :)
Standard members can only set conditional moves for 1 line. What if he or she doesn't play your anticipated moves unless it is zugzwang
That's the best solution. Before the game starts, calmly explain to your opponent the conditions under which you expect him to resign. Then if he doesn't resign, kick him - Under The Board.
That's the best solution. Before the game starts, calmly explain to your opponent the conditions under which you expect him to resign. Then if he doesn't resign, kick him - Under The Board.
Funny but don't laugh. I won a huge pot of money off some drunk sitting next to me at the poker table at a major poker room in Los Angeles years ago. He asked me what cards I was holding, and I refused to show the cards after he folded to my raise (which is completely legal and ethical and not considered rude in poker). He wanted to fight me, and almost punched me...then decided not to do it.
I like the kicking idea though. I wish you could do that online.
In my view Poker and Chess are polar opposites. That has already been a topic, but it was a long time ago. I wouldn't mind seeing it brought up again.
Robert, you're not making any sense. We're not talking about "winning" positions, we're talking about "WON" positions. K + Q v. K isn't a winning position. It's a won position. The other side has no chance of victory, and continuing to play on is spitting in the face of the winner. If I insult them for it and they learn, great. If they never forget it, that's ok. If they never play in another tournament again, no big loss. Learn to play the game, and play the game the way it's meant to be played. Boxing referees stop a fight before one side dies. In chess you need to be your own referee.
Perhaps you have missed the three occasions during this discussion in which I already acknowledged that there is nothing to gain by playing on with a lone king against a king + queen (unless you are a total beginniner - in which case - yes, you still have something to learn, even in this situation).
However, the K vs K + Q scenerio is NOT the only situation that is under discussion here; it's just the situation YOU have decided to focus on. There are many other occasions in which a player may potentially resign, or be "expected" to resign. I have had an opponent calling for me to resign after I blundered and lost my queen, for example. I find that ridiculous, since as far as I'm concerned, it's still possible to play on and win. Perhaps that's not the case with top level players, but again, I'm not a top level player. Neither was my opponent. Neither are most of the people playing chess on this site.
The point being, lower to mid level players should NEVER be too hasty when it comes to resigning games, since they still have much to learn and everything to play for. And yes, it is still possible for beginners to learn something from apparently hopeless situations, since it helps them to understand how to conclude the end game. Perhaps you don't need to play out K vs K + Q repeatedly, no, but that's just one potential end game scenario.
Your analogy with boxing matches doesn't appear to work very well. Perhaps you misunderstand why referees stop boxing matches. They don't stop matches because one of the boxers is "winning". They stop the match because one of the boxers is unable to defend himself, and if he takes any more punishment, he may suffer permanent injury or death. I don't know what sort of chess matches you like to compete in, but I've personally never felt that my life was in danger while playing chess, even on occasions when I was losing badly.
And I'm sorry, but I find the notion that you take personal offence and insults out of the fact that your opponent wants to play on to the end of the game overly sensitive and more than a bit precious. Perhaps on some occasions it's misguided and clueless for your opponent to play on in a lost game, yes. But there's no reason why you should take personal insult from that. It is only a trivial game involving moving bits of plastic around a board afterall.