When should I resign?

 You're also not permitted to eat the board, in case the chess set it like the chocolate one I just saw on TV.

I resign if im down a piece (a bishop or a knight), and dont have any tricks. If im down a pawn or to, i try my luck, and find some tricks that could work, before i resign.

I have seen people eat McDonald's chips at the game table without the arbiter saying something. yesterday in the tournament I am now the person next to me was eating bananas. I think one time someone was eating a french hot dog. (I left the table once to the local gas station and purchased a hot dog but I did not eat it at the table)

I don't think anybody would say anything if you had your lunch box.   

I have only been to FIDE rated tournaments.

it might be different if it was a tournament for the national championship.

I have never heard such a FIDE rule.

i tend to resign when i'm down a minor piece. however, it's probably not the best idea since i am still rated low enough (mid-1700s) that i may be able to squeeze out a draw against some opponents.

i just find it hard to keep on playing when i'm getting my butt kicked. i'd rather move on to a game i have  a chance of winning. i should begin to think of potential draws as a 'win' as well though.

Im pretty sure that it's not against FIDE's Laws of Chess, eating at the table, as long you arent annoying your opponent (§12.6).

This is a thing that comes easier to you with experience. Its like improving your play and moves. 

If worst comes to worst and you are not sure just play on and find out!

I usually don't resign, even if I'm down in material, until I reach the endgame.  At my level, there's always a chance my opponent will present me with a fork or a skewer, and allow me to equalize.

Well, you are talking about two things because talking about plain rude behavior is a totally different subject from talking about not resigning when there is a forced mate in two. If there is a forced mate in two the first player can make his move, the second player then makes his move, then the first player make his next move and finally the second player makes the ckeck mating move. It takes less than a minute even if both players move their pieces in a calm and relaxed manner and is quite fun. No big deal really except its entertainment value.

The trouble arrives if the loosing player also looses his manners which will be a tripple loss because he would also loose respect from other players. Why someone would put themselves in such a situation is rather strange.

If you feel that, given adequate time, you could defeat any player in the world from your opponent's position, then you should resign. I'm not sure how that rule changes when you play a much weaker player, but it does change.

That's sort of what I was thinking right now.

I was less concerned about the "when does not resigning become obnoxious" issue and more concerned about the issue of at what point I'm just wasting my time when it might be better spent playing another game.

But like you say, big mistakes are kind of common for people at my noob level so if I'm actually playing someone of a similar level it probably makes sense to continue if I have any doubt. If I'm playing someone much better than me then the more important question would be, why are they wasting their time playing a noob like me?

"If I'm playing someone much better than me then the more important question would be, why are they wasting their time playing a noob like me?"

Tournament, first round.

I have explained to an opponent, I intended my resignation as a compliment.

the only time I resigned after being 2 pawns down was to a 85 year old local chess champion. afterwards I said to him I resigned because I thought he shouldn't unessesary play this. but he said he didn't mind and I could have continued - he just wanted to play chess.

I love this answer.  It simply puts the resignation quesiton onto a level that accomodates the player's strength.  Brilliantly put. 

NMReb:  I also like your distinction between OTB and correspondance.  Perhaps most people posting in these types of topics have in mind live or turn-based games without making the distinction.  I think the "you are wasting my time" arguement holds no water in the correspondance game since people often times have multiple games going at once. 

I simply don't see why you shouldn't resign being 2 pawns down without any compensation or any *plausible* way to reach some opp colored bishop ending and perhaps even a rook ending (although more than likely your opponent will win anyways...) provided your opponent is above or within 300-400 points below your rating...

Face it, 2 pawns is a TON of material and without the above conditions, I don't think its takes too much effort to win this...Now if u sac'ed the 2 pawns its a diff story, I'm talking about 2 pawns you have dropped/lost due to tactics

i once played a chess pro of some sort (not when i was really playing chess, he was just showing off) and he spotted me his e and d pawns and kicked my butt.  basically, while some people can obviously win with a 2 pawn lead, not everyone can.  so, you have to take into account the level of competition the players are on before you can make simple statements of "down two pawns and you lose".  some of us still play with people that make blunders. 

True I guess, but at the OP's level winning withh a 2+ pawn lead against similar opposition isn't too hard (provided there is no time pressure factor of course -such as in Online Chess) When you are playing OTB tourneys and your opponent has somewhat low time (say less than 15 min) then whatever play on. (Or if your opponent is moving ridiculously slow that there is a decent possibility that he may fall into TP) 

I think most importantly, there is a time when we just have to make the judgement call. What im trying to say is that if your opponent has played relatively well to the point you dropped total 2 pawns, then you have to really decide. I didn't mean 'once you drop 2 pawns, resign.' Maybe I should take the time to revise/clarify my contention:

If you are down 2 or more pawns without compensation, then go ahead play on a few more moves (say 5-8 depending on how badly you need reassurance I guess)  and observe your opponents technique. If it is evident that your opponent is playing relatively accurately and the challenges that you pose are futile, then RESIGN. If not, THEN play on.

Yeah, the better you are, the more material is worth.  2 pawns between two beginners is nothing.  Two pawns at (I guess the average level of these posters) is a lot, and may be a good indication to resign.  However if you go even higher, they will think this "2 pawn rule" is way too late and not accurate.  GMs resign when material is even after all.

So it really has nothing to do with the raw material count.  When you're losing and have little or no compensation (many times at the point when you're reduced to passive defense) and your opponent is making progress / showing the correct winning technique, then you can resign in good conscious.  Because of this material worth to rating comparison, "losing" will be interpreted differently by different strengths of players.  So beginners don't feel bad for not resigning when you're down ____ amount of material.  Just be sure to resign when (as was said earlier) you feel you could win vs a master if you had your opponent's position.

If you are playing a much stronger opponent, are way down in material or have a very bad position, resign. Additionally, if you see that there is a forced mate intwo or something, just resign. If your opponent is the type who might miss it, play on and see what happens. Always fight for a draw if you think its possible. Its just that stronger players often don't make such blunders. You are just saving time by quitting early.

I resign when my opponent wins a piece. If I lose a piece for some pawns I'll play on but if I have no counterplay in sight (this includes my opponent's time left) I'll just resign, since it's a relatively easy win and both parties are happy. 

The opponent is happy because I resigned and he didn't have to go through a boring grind, and I'm happy because I can simply play another game instead of grinding painfully through the rest of the game.