Survey: How do you treat non-resigners?

Tell that to poor Ziryab then, who still isn't above 1900 even with his age and experience.

In OTB chess (which is much different than online chess), the rate of increase in your rating really depends on when you start. In the USCF it really can take several years for a young, beginning player to advance up to 1600+, unless they are just obsessive with the game or the area in which they live is a chess hotspot with tournaments and great players galore.

The rate of rating increase can also slow down depending on how much free time you can actually devote to tournaments. Not everyone can go tournament roadtripping every weekend you know (especially me, what with college and all, and especially family men).

=Edit=

Also, just thinking about it a bit more, it also depends on your competition as well. I found that raising my rating in the state scholastic events was very difficult, because even if you won a lot of games, there just weren't that many high rated scholastic players around to give the nice rating boosts. In the elementary divisions it seemed as if 90% or more of the players fell within the 1000-1400 range.

The whole point of the discussion is about courtesy.  Now, it looks to me like some of those who are claiming here the unacceptability of not resigning are doing so with a bit of lack of courtesy :)

Let's be courteous both to the skilled players who need not to waste time, and to the beginners who play how they feel is appropriate.  Let's be courteous both to those who think that resigning from a lost postition is a must, and to those who don't take offence if the opponent has a different view of whether or not to continue their game.  I've read far too much aggressive language here (from some), for a discussion on courtesy.

How is a new user to this site going to view the culture of playing based on this thread?  Yes, be respectful, as mvocale has stated, but also behave in a way that is appropriate to one's own needs, which seems contradictory and I don't think gets us anywhere. 

We're forgetting about the game of chess, here.  A beautiful game which should be respected with certain standards of behaviour that we all as players, beginners or otherwise, have to adjust to. 

We all understand the notion of adjusting to a culture of behaviour: notice the lack of truely aggressive language here amongst those that are capable of such...

My point is simple: the expectation that one should resign to unproven players is silly.

It's not about rating. Among those who I know personally, there are players below who have not proven they can nurse a decisive advantage to victory, and there are players below 1100 who have. On the internets, everyone is a stranger.

Resign when there is nothing for you to learn, and nothing for your opponent to prove.

I was criticized by friends for resigning here, but my opponent had proven in previous games that his advantage was more than sufficient. I allowed myself to get sucked into his rapid play and grabbed the wrong pawn, playing c5 when I would normally play a6. Now, I'm down at least an exchange and White has a strong initiative.

ziryab isn't the rook sac still within theoretical grounds after O-O Nc7 Nc6 Nxa8, black gets a monstrous centre

heinzie, that's what an expert told me at the time. I couldn't find support for his notion in my database. There are games, but I wouldn't call that "theory" in the sense that you are using it.

The highest rated non-loss for Black that I've found:

Well OK, there is at least some theory for it which made me use the word "theoretical", maybe not the appropriate word, let's just keep it at that it has been on the board before. And I have seen it played by others and I have played it myself - given it was only online, and I was surprised as well when I learned that it all had been played before, but this opening pops up every now and then. Black can have a comfortable game if played with enough deliberation. Resigning only deprives yourself the joy of trying! :p

Well, that was the consensus of friends. My choices were 1) struggle for two or three hours in a game that I will certainly lose, or 2) go home, open a bottle of wine, and watch television with my wife.

I've fairly certain that I've had the position in blitz, and may have even won from it. My opponent in this game, however, won four national championships in elementary and middle school (he is college age now), and had shown me his technique against the French in a similar position with material equality. The result of my blunder was clear.

Deranged, that's alot of thinking for a couple points. :)

Like this (ongoing game). Its a non-live game, and I have set conditional moves for the next 100+ moves - careful to avoid accidental stalemate or draw by 50 move rule, and my rooks eventually moving in an unpredictable pattern so that he cant try to use the conditional moves feature himself. I'll simply not pay attention for awhile and see how long he sticks with it.

I asked him to resign once he had lost his queen, and again, after he lost his rook. Hey... its an online game, not a tournament.

I've just looked at this game. What a poor performance from white. If I were White I would have hung my head in shame and resigned immediately upon losing my Queen, never mind the Rook!! I've played blunders as bad as that (and worse LOL)and had the good grace to apologise to my opponent followed by immediate resignation. What's the matter with people? I would feel like I was insulting my opponent by playing on, it's like saying "yeah, OK, so you're a Q and Rook up plus a winning position, but I don't think you're good enough to beat me from here...."....ridiculous and unsporting. It's different of course if one player is much higher rated because the lower rated player may want to see the mate for their improvement but in cases as above, never mind about how I lost the Queen....I'd want to know how I got into a position like that in the first place!! No one has an argument here...LOOK!!! BLACK IS A WHOLE Q up!!! What's to figure out?

that game is realy screwy...

All it takes is kids in a room, and those moves are possible! :) I have played so many like that, and yes, I feel stupid and to resign.  BUT... I usually ask my opponent, if he/she would mind if I continued, even though it's a lost game.  BTW, I have won a few games with a queen down. :p

mtguy should start accepting bets on how long the game will keep going =P

i hate people that just flat out abandon games when they lose their queen...

 TO ALL THAT CAN READ! YOU DON'T NEED A QUEEN TO WIN!!!!!!!

Fine then. I will send you a challenge, you give me Queen odds and we will just see how well you do =P

To Candleintherain and mk_master, sure, tell us something we DON'T know, but we are talking about lost causes not losing a Q and having counterplay that may result in drawing or winning chances due to the endgame position etc, NOT lost causes.You tell me how you'd win with a Q down and just a few pawns left.....and like Teary writes, we'll set up a challenge with you a clear Q down (no material equality as that's not the same thing) ans we'll see how you do.Anyone can lose a Queen with a couple of rooks and a bishop left, say, and beat an inferior player, but to write "TO ANYONE WHO CAN READ" etc is insulting and shows your ignorance of the purpose and spirit of this thread. Obviously it's possible to lose your Queen if you sacrificed it knowing you gain a checkmate combination....that's BESIDE THE POINT.

Only chumps play on when they are clearly lost. 

Agreed. Only chumps.And you know who you are on this thread!!!