The etiquette of resigning

You show up and claim you never resign. I check on your profile, and yes, you don't resign, but it's all bullet games. So, what is one supposed to deduce of it? I do know what you tell, and I do know what I can see out of a basic check (no one is going to flip pages on anyone's profile for such matter). So, you don't tell and I don't see makes it what I said.

Even in some of these games in the Candidates, people play on for quite a bit. For instance this game where Nepo won against Vidit, that is basically when I would resign as well, most of the time, maybe I would play one more move to see the rook taking the bishop.

So not even top players always resign the minute they know they are lost, they play on for a bit. Plus it probably depends on the shock value of the blunder as well. I remember in one of the games where Carlsen beat Nepo, Giri saying something like: "When he played on till this moment, he could have played on for a bit more in order to recover from this shocking blunder", or something to that effect, and it was basically over 5-10 moves before he resigned.

On top of that, some titled players advise people not to be quick to resign, and I've heard many saying they do not mind too much when opponents are playing on.

So, I don't think even strongest players hate the opponents that play on for some time. Though, of course, they do not play on till mate either, unless sometimes when it is a nice mate.

I feel that they play on until there is a glimmer of hope. What that glimmer of hope is, depends on the playing strength.

Incorrect.

Yes correct, I went to your lost games, nah.

Last season I won one of my clubs tournaments (thinly veiled brag :-)). In the key game my opponent insisted on playing until the bitter end. The only thing I was upset about was that he resigned when there was an obvious mate in 2, which he denied me. But him trying all kind of things to swindle me even though he was theoretically dead lost did not upset me. And no one else in the club had anything negative to say about it.

My opponent was 50+ years old, been a member of the club for decades and had higher rated than me. So no, I do not buy into your "bad sportsmanship and adjust or quit" paradigm.

Well, that one case is nothing but a one case. Then, I never said that one would face any direct and obvious reaction from other players, other than a discrete but real disdain, an will avoid talking too much with the said player, and so on.

Now, in that pecular case you mentioned, yourself says the guy is old (like me), and in the club for decades. It sure happens that some old player with irrational behaviour is tolerated within their own club, for various reasons. We have got plenty of them in our own club, including one who lost two games in a row in a tournament for phone ringing...

Anyhow, just don't "buy" anything, just go do that what you say, in all official competitions you play, and you'll be soon the mocked guy of your area, even if no one says nothing to your face.

Etiquette will vary between people, but here are some of my criteria for when to resign:

1) I don't resign just because I lost a queen. I often feel disappointed if I make a good move and the other person resigns immediately. There are still lots of changes to play and fix things. To keep playing after a major piece loss is okay, in my opinion.

2) I would prefer people resign rather than waiting ten or twenty minutes without moving. I've been in games where people were disappointed in their positions (I assume) and just idle for the remainder of their clock, which leaves me sitting and twiddling my thumbs until they run out of time. They don't close the page or app, because that would time them out and end the game with a loss. They instead keep it open and just wait for their time to run out. That feels bad spirited to me.

3) Please don't ask me to resign unless you're really in a hurry and can't spare the five or ten minutes. You might see the path to mate, but I don't, so let us practice together. If I leave early neither of us gets to practice the endgame. Or perhaps I'm working towards a stalemate -- finding those positions can be just as beneficial as making sure one doesn't end up stalemating.

These all apply to games less than 30 minutes in duration. For correspondence games where it's a few days between moves I can totally see resigning when you find a guaranteed loss.

EDIT: I changed the phrasing on this to be more neutral.

Kaeldorn: "Its a consensus!"

[Four different people chime in to say they see no such consensus; nobody chimes in to confirm that Kaeldorn's purported consensus exists.]

Kaeldorn: "See? It's a consensus, except for that one exception."

I can imagine, though, why Kaeldorn thinks such a consensus exists. If he's so obnoxiously insistant on this point in person, then who would have the poor sense to disagree with him? And then he takes their silence as all the more proof that everyone sees it his way...

Believe what you want. I even have seen arbiters mention to players their unsportmanship after the game. I do doubt the talkers on here have got much experience of OTB competition anyway, and it's a known thing that people will tell all sorts of stories in order to avoid something such as "losing" the discussion.

So, as for me, you win I lose, cos I do resign keeping it up with you believers fo the true faith, and wish you good life, good games and good luck.

Wait, you've seen arbiters critize players for playing until mate? Or for something else,like stalling on the clock while playing until mate, or making repeated draw offers all the way to getting checkmated? I've seen them criticize various unsportsmanlike behaviors of that sort, but I've never once seen them critize a player just for not resigning, and I would consider that highly inappropriate for an arbiter to do. I don't doubt that it's happened somewhere, but it's not part of the usual arbiter ethos.

Can't really test your hypothesis because I always follow my maxim: resign when there's no point in playing on.

And you should not be worried about that member of the club whom I mentioned, he is a beloved member of the club and local chess scene, no one talks behind his back, let alone avoiding him.

depends on the level i say from 100-500 never resign but 600-1300 resign down a rook if you feel 1400-1600 down a knight 1700+ down 2 pawns

also its you option if you think you can bring it back then keep playing but if your opponent is up a queen in the end game i mean

The most memorable quote from a GM about resigning was Savielly Tartakower's "nobody ever won a game by resigning".

Nobody at my OTB club teases me about playing on after being in a losing position. Granted part of that may be due to the numerous games I've drawn or won from positions where they would have resigned. The general consensus at the club is that if I go into an endgame in a better (or even, or even a bit inferior) position then I will probably win it.

I've made opening blunders dropping a piece for a pawn when we were both over 2100 USCF (2000 FIDE equivalent) that I have drawn in the ending.

I fought an inferior game against a GM for about 20 moves after many would have resigned, but the entire time I was making every threat available and thus making the GM pay attention. The GM was not bothered in the slightest.

If there are threats available then I will fight on.

In various discussions when other arbiters like myself (FAs and IAs) get together the only players that we are perturbed about that play on are those in hopelessly lost positions playing against an opponent that knows how to win it. We don't get perturbed when both players with 3-digit ratings are continuing in an easily won position because we have seen a LOT of cases where the easily won position is not won by a three-digit rated player. For that matter, the STRONG consensus amongst us is that if a player or spectator is berating a person for not resigning then that spectator is ejected and that player might get ejected from the tournament.

Stalling (trying to run out the clock) is a very different issue and may result in the staller's game being adjudicated (at least under US rules). Since stallers can end up delaying the pairings for the next round they will often get disdain from the field of players.

A number of players are so incensed by an opponent playing on in a lost position they they show their contempt by themselves resigning just to show the opponent what they think. The does, however, simply reinforce to the opponent that they should never resign.

Every once in a while, someone says something worth emphasizing. This is one of them. I'm sure I have not played as many otb tournaments as some here, but I've played quite a few. What you have said is exactly what I noticed too.

Since I play time controls with no added time it makes sense to not resign early. Blunders can happen on both sides and you can recover being a rook down.

 I’ll resign when I’m down material and can’t make moves that create complications for my opponent and see no chance to stall the game enough to make them run out of time.

in endgame I resign when I can no longer stop them from getting a queen

I have seen people resign in equal positions and a few times they didn’t notice that they had a winning position and resigned because they were temporarily down material

It depends on the context. Sometimes resigning is just lazy and cowardly but sometimes you're better off saving energy for another game. In an arena where streaks matter I resign easier unless I can dirty flag. If I'm playing a standalone game I try not to resign unless there's truly no point because often I come on here to learn and improve and you don't learn or improve by rage quitting.

I must say it wears on me how some people get mad if you don't resign and some people get mad if you do. I just want to play a board game.

Have I missed the conversation about stalemate. As a beginner and poor player (350 rated), I actually enjoy being chased and to see if I can be finished off by my opponent before getting a stalemate. Am I missing something?