When a player refuses to resign

Be VERY careful creating multiple Queens.

One of the high school kids I coached finally rose from about 900 to 1100 and, playing an unrated teen in an OTB rated tournament, decided to humiliate him by creating as many Queens as possible.

He STALEMATED the guy!  His face was green for the rest of the chess tournament and he was teased in club play until the next tournament.

I look at it as the losing player's right to hope you blunder, create a stalemate, etc.  I haven't played a game I was losing out to checkmate in decades, but I respect any player's right to do what the rules allow.

At an over-the-board tournament, I played a lower rated player a difference of 400 points.  While we playing, I was losing.  Actually, I did not losing to a lower rated player but I was losing. I was about to resign but played on.  During the game, I noticed he had a forced mate.  Once he tried to implement the mate, I was going to resign.  He did not see the mate, I thought he did not know how to checkmate.  So, I continued.  During the game, I was surrounded by other players and chess friends.  He said to me:  "Why don't you resign."  Friends that knew me, knew that is something you do not say to me and especially during the over-the-board tournament.  So, I continued to play.  I saw a forced Stalemate.  When the game was Stalemated, he said:  "You are so lucky."  I replied:  "I have done it many times!"   There are three ways to lose in chess:  time, resignation, or checkmate.  You as a player have to prove that you can win.  If you are winning, then prove it. 

You mean, people watching his games is rude for him? If you think like that then you shouldn't play games until you are confident enough to win every game.

Kid @mickyj, It's a discussion page. Play some games then come to talk.

Yeah, I was giving hints of the proofs one by one 

What a silly childish statement - " ... the opponent REFUSES to resign" ))))) That is simply his right to play on, especially with such mass of rooks and queens, which gives considerable chances for a stalemate, in a live chess game, especially taking into consideration White's not quite confident play. You'd just remember for future - NOBODY is ever obliged to resign - it's up to him self only to decide whether he WOULD LIKE TO RESIGN OR NOT.

Sorry, I meant "... taking into consideration Black's not quite confident play ..." In fact, both White's and Black's play in this game is not quite confident, even if that was a live chess game, maybe it was a 1 minute/game when there is simply no time to think, but only to move pawns and pieces.

So let me understand: you have 2 rooks and 2 queens vs opponent king in the centre and your best idea is to push b pawn?Then u tell that to not resign is ridicolous?I think that all moves that you pushed b pawn are ridicolous.And this post does not make much sense honestly,if not that with 2 rooks and 2 queens u search for the third queen to mate your opponent.No doubt!

During over-the-board games, you are not allowed to talk to your opponent.  If you have a question, you go through the tournament director.  My opponent made an outburst while game was being played.  A no no at the over-the-board games.  When you are playing bullet type games, you do not have time but use your clock as a weapon (winning the game).  Yes, I agree, that you have the right to resign or not!

Resigning is the best choice if someone is aiming to be better at chess. Statistically it is found that weak players don't resign generally. In the short game above, your opponent tried his luck. But one needs to be skillful not lucky to deserve winning. I see the comments above. I think those users who get insulted (thus novice) to resign is aggressive here. 

Yes, too many Queens increases the possibility of a Stalemate!  Why not checkmate with the material on hand?