The etiquette of resigning

 I will not resign if I'm not sure where I went wrong, because the game review is more instructive. if you know where you went wrong, and your position is lost, you should probably resign. but really the only thing I consider rude is when your opponent refuses a quick checkmate. even if they want you to resign, the point of that is to make the game quicker and respect your opponent. don't be a jerk because you thought your opponent should have resigned. bottom line: resign when your lost, unless you're playing a beginner. 

Thank you all for your responses. So I have been playing chess for over 30 years, but may not know all of the ettiquite. Basically, I had just my king and my opponent had a rook, queen, 4 pawns and a king. Instead of checkmating me on his next move (which he could have checkmated me) he moved his pawn. I moved my king again giving him an opportunity to checkmate, but he still moved his pawn. I told him what he was doing was not good cool. He told me I was in the wrong and should have resigned. So I resigned, but I just wanted to know if I was wrong for originally not resigning or if he was wrong for not checkmating me and attempting to promote all four of his pawns when he could checkmate me on his next move with his rook and queen. 

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and your responses : )

Though it does irritate some players, playing till checkmate is perfectly legal and within the rules of chess.

I felt that your opponent had already seen the checkmate, but was likely intent on promoting all his pawns.

It sounds more like the opponent wanted to punish a player that was foolishly playing on in a lost position and was doing so by promoting all the pawns feasible to promote.  The downside of that type of "punishment" is that it greatly increases the chance of an accidental stalemate, and thus encourages players to continue on in greatly inferior positions - the exact opposite of the message that is trying to be sent.

I've probably won more "lost positions" than "won positions. I only resign when I feel I have no possible way to win, ie, rook and two kings endgame.

I resign once I am out of ideas to save a lost position and I am convinced that my opponent knows how to convert the win. Otherwise, I use every resource available and fight on.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/what-is-a-proper-moment-to-resign-a-game

I still consider myself new to this game so my thought process has been "TO THE DEATH!" One reason is, you have to kill me to beat me.  Second reason is, If I get a stale-mate, it only means my king got away and I didn't lose.  Thirdly, I will not surrender.

Now, after playing more and more and seeing how my opponent resigns, I realized huh, there was no other way this person would win.  They saw moves way ahead and knew it was a done deal.  I saw I am going to win but missed what they saw until they resigned and I studied the game and THEN saw what they saw.  I have become to respect the resign.  Granted, I have yet to resign but only maybe because of old habits, pride, "TO THE DEATH!" rings in my ears...or whatever.      I do know a recent game I had I was down 20 points, however, I knew I was in control still and ended up with a check-mate win.    If I would have resigned based on the point factor that would have been the biggest blunder of all.      Thanks for this thread bump...good timing for this eternal rookie.  hundreds. 

I really don't mind people resigning. On my other account, relatively my main one, I have achieved a Blitz score of 2507. I personally believe that when a certain player reaches a level when they firmly believe that they can't beat you, as so if losing pieces which are necessarily key, such as a rook or a queen. But although some people think that as an alternative, I think that you should continue and try your hardest. And even if so, you are on the brink of defeat, you shouldn't resign to remove that sense of loss but instead take it has an opportunity to become better.

I´m a resigner But I absolutely let my opponent deside what he or she is! I decide for myself and he/she desides for themself. If I´ve to play up to the end, I do it. It´s also fun to prove that I´m really able to put the last nail into the opponents coffin. But when the other side resigns, ok, then I move on. For me sometimes it´s stubbornness if somebody plays on and on, but it´s never "bad sportmansship"!

(that is for online games. OTB it may be something different.)

chess.com should implement some kind of gif or vid that pops up with the king being knocked over after a resign   like this

O but they do.  

Bad Ol’ Putty Tat

My rule is simple, during the game if I notice my opponent had missed opportunities like force mate, winning a piece, etc. I won't resign too early, I'll wait for blunders. but on the other hand if I'm facing a stronger opponent and there's no chance of winning I'll simply resign, otherwise its just wasting time. 

Generally, if all you can hope to do is to stall and waste your opponent's time, best to resign and save him the time, and yourself the embarrasment of looking like a petulant child who is throwing a tantrum.

For a player who is trying to improve their game, you should resign when :

1) Your position is lost, and

2) You have no reasonable source of counter-play, and

3) You feel that there is nothing further to be learned by continuing.