Survey: How do you treat non-resigners?

Isn't the goal supposed to be .. to Win? and Barring "Win" .. to "Not Lose"

There's no need to cheat, or simply stall in the hopes of a Time-Out happening/the opponent becoming so disgusted as to quit

That said, timing, can certainly be an issue .. Example Player A is probably going to lose against opponent 1, but is about to win against opponents 2 and 3 .. Resigning game 1 makes sense, as it lowers A's score which ends up increasing the Win when finishing 2 and 3

Personally I don't have this problem when playing against lower rated guys (<1600) but even when some1 with higher rating is forcing me to play easily won position it's not a biggie unless they play instead of waiting as long as they can.

People are different - for some game's not over until it's over.

Other (like me) will resign when they are in lost position - I do that out of respect but same time I don't feel disrespected when some1 wants toplay  until they're checkmated.

Besides I think in XIX century it was common even among good players to play until mate.

 I'm going to have to agree with the top statement.  I'd say that the vast majority of my opponents(correspondence) are courteous and respectful, however, I've had a few bad seeds that will offer a draw on every move.  And when I don't accept, they get extremely irate.  Like N2UHC says, you agreed to play chess, then play chess.  I'm not being an irritant by declining your draw, I just think I can win given the position.

Whilst playing with Cousin Lan *or was it Cousin Var .. hard to keep track* .. there were several times Cousin would end the match when He'd decided he'd "definitely" lost .. However, on one similar match, when played out, He won

As said, If someone, feels, they have the means and ability to END things .. then do so, otherwise it's Clearly the "winning" Player who is stalling/dragging things out

"There are a few situations where it's probably ok to resign such as being one move from an unstoppable mate."

This Ish agrees with, mostly .. There have been quite a few times where Ish could clearly see Mate .. the opponent however did NOT, thus letting Ish continue to fight/win

If one is concerned with their ranking, then, Especially if the losing side's score is plummeting then End it NOW as chances are the "value" of the win will decrease as time goes on

Examples from 3 minute blitz games are irrelavant though (as stated in the first post). This is because you can win those games with time tactics alone and not pure chess skill. You also do not lose as much by your opponent not resigning in a blitz game (what is 3 minutes anyways?), whereas in a correspondence game it could take weeks to wrap things up and be able to move on to other things (such as the next round of the tournament that the opponent has been holding up for instance!)

There is no such thing as using time 'effectively' when the position is hopelessly lost--there is only time wasting.

Also, reducing the time per move is not always an option due to personal schedules and/or uncontrollable tournament rules.

"Don't accept a time control or game pairing if you can't wait for someone who is using their time effectively"

Well said

Had, yet, another resignation

*sigh*

This is stupid, I don't care, its within their rights not to resign and to play the game to checkmate.

Just pull a Nakamura and mate the opponent with 8 Knights xD

"Just pull a Nakamura and mate the opponent with 8 Knights"

Vanity .. Pride .. Ego .. All begging a Fall

Or...all begging for hilarity. One or the other =P

Non-resigners? I have them hanged on the spot! When I play a 10 minute game I expect it to last 6 minutes, not 10! Those people are constantly wasting my time, and time is money, so that makes them thieves. What right have they to judge their position? It's my game so it's about me! When I say they lose it means they lose!

 Could it be that oinquarki is Ish's new bestest best friend??  .. but then, with the high mortality rate of BBFs .. it might not be worth it

Eh, too much clean up. Much better to have the body kept in one piece so it burns better.

Like tax collectors and harlots.  You decide whether to be like Josh or the establishment. 

Awwww

Stop .. you're making us feel Homesick

*remembers "Baby's first Electric Chair"*

Meanwhile, Back On Topic, .. someone once said "Never back down, never surrender!" .. It would seem that would apply quite well to Chess

Well Ish it depends. When I play against someone strong (let's say 2000+) it would be just a waste of mine and his time to play Q+K against K for example. In hopeless situation I prefer to resign and move on coz I won't learn anything knew from playing it ( I already mastered Q+K against K endings).

In corr chess i dont even notice.