deleted

Fair enough but look at the game I mentioned. What do you think about that particular case. Move 29 draw agreed in what could have been the match of the year.

The reason for allowing resignation is a no brainer and warrants no discussion.

As I understand it,  the "draw" being discussed here is a draw by agreement, especially when, even with good play, a draw isn't a necessary outcome - in other words, if there is fight left on the board, the players should be forced to fight.

I can see a couple inherent problems with this. 

First, if anyone remembers Fischer's 1963 game with Robert Byrne, the GM commentators GM Rossolimo and IM Sherman -at the game's critical point (Byrnes 21. Kf1) - thought Fischer was dead lost :  "In a room set aside for commentaries on the games in progress, two grandmasters (?) were stating, for the benefit of the spectators, that Byrne had a won game. [ "'Fischer has nothing at all for his piece,' declared Rossolimo" ] Byrne's reply to Fischer's next move must have been jaw dropping!"  [from The Games of Robert J. Fischer, by Robert Wade]   After Fischer's reply 21...Qd7, Byrne resigned.  My point is - even a panel of GMs shouldn't be allowed to dictate to the players how their game should (or shouldn't) proceed.

Second, there are solid reasons why players may agree to a draw in playable conditions, or even to gentleman's or GM draws. Chess tournaments can be particularly grueling experiences and I would think this would be particularly true at the higher levels. A draw can be a strategic method to conserve energy or to save time.  I can even understand a weaker player who somehow gets a slight advantage against his stronger opponent offering a draw to avoid  losing on technique, while the stronger player accepts since his potential to lose is pretty high.  Players may offer draws if a win won't advance them much, but a loss would keep them out of the money.

I think the same arguments, modified for the situation, apply to matches also.

The only time I would agree that draws should be sanctioned would be in the event of provable unethical collusion. 

Well the more I play the more I have to say that declaring a draw or resigning is part of the game.  I do not see how you cold not allow these.  

I feel it is more a of a respect thing with chess.  If you can look at you postion and see you are in a losing position, why continue.  The only way I would continue is if who I am playing is not very good. 

I just feel it is more respectful to resign when you know you have been outplayed.

Western chess is unfortunately the most drawish of all the chess variants. For the players who hate 'friendly" draws, I recommend playing shogi or xiangqi for a breath of fresh air, then come back to chess with another heart.

So they could just get to that same position and play a 3 move rep and the game will be drawn anyways.

I think that is one things many of the GM's appriciated about Bobby Fischer.  His unwillingness to accept a draw in a drawn position....and then he would win.

Chess doesn't have a problem. There is no need for this and no need for 960, but keep on talking. On and on and on and

on..........................................................................and on

thats right carry on.

 very interesting...................hmm.....................oh............................

I want to do away with the queen's bishop, and the king's pawn.  They just delay my development.

Now that we have come to the conclusion that Chess isn't played to be fun, but to entertain us, as Midi so classfully shows. I suggest that the winning player get's to shoot, or cut, the looser, with a weapon of choice. Chess isn't played cause it's fun, cause it's an art, science, or whatever you believe, It's played to entertain Midi, and me, and I enjoy blood splatter.

/With best regards, the voice you hear in your head when you read something.

OK, since the start of this thread started with a mention of pistols, suppose one player with a substantial advantage (material, position, or both), at their next move pulled out at pistol and shot themselves in the head?  Would this be a resignation?  A win because of the suicidal player's advantage at the moment of their death?  A loss because they failed by time?

 I wish there was a way to penalize players for abandoning games on live chess.

I AGREE THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD BE VERY EXTREME

In pistol shooting, the first to draw often wins.

I disagree

assuming of course the shot hits....

anyways as far as this discussion goes i think draws and resignations are fine. However, at major events where you have some GM's dukeing it out I think they should play it out unless its blatently obvious no victory can be acheived.  Those major events, in my mind anyways are more for the puplic than the players, I can understand the matches beeing exausting but agreed uppon draws kinda ruin the matches for the unexperienced player who wants to learn.  Im not saying eliminate draws in the major events or anything, but maybe alter the point system or give penalties to players that have more than x draws at the tourney.  Give them an insentive to play it out. i duno make a win worth 2 pts, a draw 1 pt, an agreed uppon draw 1/2 pt and a loss 0 pts. any thoughts???

actually im tired of people who hasnt resign when they have to do it.

and they force the game until the clocks crashes..it´s simply anoyying cause im bad with time.

bad thing for me,its a part of chess

Your idea is so absurd that they don't deserve me wasting time explaining why you're wrong....so I won't.

Concerning the draw or not to draw debate.  How about make it piece based?  If there are a certain number of active pieces still left on the board it is against the rules to offer or accept a draw.

Thoughts?

why mess with a good thing? chess is fine the way it is if there was a major flaw it would have been fixed already, stop complaning about the people who quit when your going to win....

There is a number of chess enthusiasts who dislike the prevalence of draws at high levels. There exist some proposals aimed at reducing the "gradmaster draws" syndrome the OP described. Among them is the proposal, when counting tournament points, to give 3 points for a win and 1 point to each player for a draw, reducing the relative value of a draw in points. 

The resignation protest in the OP is stupid.

"if there was a major flaw it would have been fixed already"

This is also stupid. According to that logic, nothing ever should be changed.