Would You Resign In this Position (It's still going on now)

@woton well said.

@snudoo why should your opponent trust you to convert anything? The whole point of the game is to win, not just get to a winning position. You secure an advantage and then you convert it. The onus is entirely on you.

Soliciting advice in an ongoing game is prohibited and could get you banned from the site.

@rytsar25507 of course it's good sportsmanship to play on, you play on until the game has ended, making the best move you can. The whole point of the game is to secure checkmate, not to securing a winning position and feel offence that your opponent wants to finish the game.

you do you.

yes, because at snudoo's level of chess (2000+ blitz) it's still very difficult to convert a K vs K+Q

@rytsar25507 it's not about difficult, it's about it literally being the whole point of the game.

wow, so we should just play on K vs K for 50 moves because 

iTs LiTTeRaLLy tHe pOiNt oF tHe gaMe tO tRy aNd pLaY tHe bEsT moVEs

i dont know about you, but people are busy, have places to be. its just not efficient, fun or practical to play out a K + Q vs K.

@rytsar25507 if your opponent is trying to win it won't be 50 moves. It will be significantly less. If your opponent isn't trying to win there's a chance you'll secure stalemate. If someone is too busy to finish a game, maybe they shouldn't start the game.

why am i wasting my time arguing with you? unfollowed this forum.

Dogs are better than cats and tea is better than coffee.

End of discussion.

@rytsar25507 I'm just explaining to you the principle of sportsmanship within chess.

Incidentally, chess is a unique case in sport in that it's considered good sportsmanship to give up a lost position, and bad sportsmanship to play to the end.

@captaintugwash only a very very small minority consider it bad sportsmanship to complete a game of chess.

Not in a clearly losing position No.

@NickHanne in a clearly losing position, the onus is on the person in a winning victory to win. Not whine. A very clear difference.

You are very combative which makes for great inspired debate, but try not to take it personally. Nobody seems to be whining, we are all expressing different opinions i think. I have learnt this since these posts and will certainly be playing optimum moves in any advantages position to win from now on  Lesson Learnt.

But to specifically answer your "only a very very small minority consider it bad sportmanship to complete a game of chess." In a clearly losing position (such as my example) i respectfully and whole heartily disagree. Shall we at least agree to disagree? 

Not a "very very small minority". A small minority perhaps, as in maybe the top 20%. It depends on the strength of your opponent. My rating on [other site] is 1960-odd (92nd percentile), anyone who can win a bishop against me is good enough to convert. I'd perhaps fight on if I blundered a bishop against a 1400 player, but even then I'm expecting to lose and wouldn't fight on to checkmate, just until it was obvious my opponent is good enough to win.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes when we lose material we have counterplay, or there are realistic stalemate chances, but generally that's not the case. 

Under 1400, perhaps people should play on, especially in blitz. But above 1600, it's a waste of time and frankly it's depressing to play chess when we know we're lost.

If I was black I would definitely not resign. Certainly after this position

when white has 59. e8(Q)++ mate. When white doesn't mate on move 59 I would conclude that either white does not know what they are doing or they are purposefully being silly. If the latter, then white can hardly complain when black continues the game rather than resign. If the former, if white really cannot see that there is mate in 1, then I would play on because there is every chance that white will accidentally stalemate.  

@nickhanne the whining comment is in reference to those who said they feel offended when an opponent doesn't resign.