This is getting ridiculous

Salaskan,

Perhaps your opponent does not realize that you have already "won" the game.  I recently played a game where my opponent at one point was "down a rook", and I actually thought I might have a chance to beat him, but he ended up the winner.  Beginners don't necessarily have a clue when they have reached the point where they cannot win.  Perhaps this is also true of some intermediate players?  Using your yardstick, I should not even start any of the games I've been playing, because I am a beginner playing against a seasoned and skilled player, so every game is lost before I even make my opening move.  Should I resign?  Or should I keep trying to beat him and be grateful for his endless patience?

I was going through Korchnoi's best games collection and recall one position in a game that he was winning where he made some disparaging remarks about people showing a lack of respect by not resigning when they are clearly lost. 

What was funny was that after that I went through Keres's best games collection and he had a game against, you guessed it, Korchnoi!   Korchnoi was lost and Keres' made a similar, but much nicer remark, on how Korchnoi could have simply resigned instead of playing on.   And yet Korchnoi played on.  

But then again, in neither of these positions was the opponent down by a rook or more with nothing to show for it.

Some games end in draws because an opponent who was winning by a blunder also blunders.

cry baby

The following dialogue occurred between my opponent and me in one of my first games after I had convinced myself to enable chat again. I had a forced mate in one or two. It was a 15 minute game, I had 8 on the clock and he about 12-13.

Opponent: game over - i think

Me: you might click resign then

Opponent: i'll let you wait, you took so much time to move

Me: just as you like

Opponent: you're very polite

Opponent: i'll resign then

and did it ;)

Oh, booh-Fu%#ing-hoo.

I am playing in a tournament now; of my 10 games I have already won 7, and 2 have been draws. In the remaining game we have both lost Queen and one Bishop, but my opponent has also lost one Rook, both Knights and three Pawns. But he keeps playing, one move per day.  

There is no solution to this. A player has every right to keep playing a game until it is finished, i.e. until it ends in checkmate og draw, or until one player gives up.   

If one cannot accept this, one should stop playing internet chess.

Thanks/:

When this topic comes up I always remember this game of mine : http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=13383856

When should he have resigned ? I certainly expected him to resign before he actually did. I have my own theories/ideas about why such "strong" internet players dont resign when they are completely lost and yet you will almost never see this in an otb game between two such strong opponents. Curious, isnt it ? 

I also dont believe such players should be banned but I would like to know which players do this BEFORE I play them. At least then I may have the option of simply not playing them. 

Please tell me you didn't draw that one as white, when you could have won with 5. Qxa4+...

I have seen this comparison before and it is simply faulty. All of these sports have a set time period ( baseball is 9 innings and the time can vary ) and they are required to play until time ( or innings ) are finished.  Resigning or quitting is simply NOT an option. 

Whereas in other sports (e.g. boxing, wrestling, snooker), it is quite usual to concede when an opponent has an unassailable lead.

Even if the rules were similar enough to be compared, the comparison still wouldn't be valid.  The conventions and ettiquette of chess are the conventions and ettiquette of chess.  Comparing it to how other games deal with similar situations doesn't really tell us anything because those games aren't chess.

Everyone complaining about opponents not resigning - if you find continuing a game in a won position really so annoying, you still have the option to offer a draw. If your opponent's position is really losing, he will gladly accept and you have the annoying game off the board with half a point. If you want the win, go on, work for it and show that you deserve it :)

Do not resign or offer these folks draws.  This will only re-enforce this behaviour.  Show them the futility of continuing by beating them and eventually they will (hopefully) learn to resign in these positions.

It is sometimes argued that if chess is the ONLY sport or game in which it may be appropriate to quit before the outcome is 100% certain, then this is in some way a weakness in the approach to the game.

Showing that chess is NOT unique in this respect shoots that fox.

I don't know that it would be that definitive -- just because the rules are similar, or even identical between chess and another game, doesn't mean that the conventions and established etiquette are.

Opening poster played this gem yesterday

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=108095067

Why didn't he resign after Qxb8+? Ridiculous

etc. etc. etc.

I agree with TheGrobe, rewarding their behavior by offering a draw or resigning when your position is won is wrong.