Yes, Resigning is part of the game
Sort:
Carwasher_Superdrunk
Apr 13, 2022
0
#1
Resignation is part of the etiquette of chess, like it or not. When you refuse to resign to an opponent who has a massive material edge, you are insulting your opponent by implicitly stating that you don't think they can actually win.
I routinely play people on this site who refuse to resign after blundering a queen, or who are down by even more in the endgame. If your opponent has three queens vs your lone king and you won't resign, you are being a bad sport.
So when you are down a queen or more, do the right thing: resign. Don't be a jerk and waste everyone's time with your utterly lost game.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#2
You are wrong actually. Players around 1200 and below, when they lose their queen, there is still a little chance winning. I won’t talk about players above 1500 though. But you didn’t specify the fact that players under 1200 still have little chance. Also “If your opponent has three queens vs your lone king and you won't resign, you are being a bad sport” —Nope actually. There is still chance of stalemate. Yes it is rarely, but still there is a chance.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#3
It's been part of the etiquette of the game for decades and it's even mentioned in The Queens Gambit when Beth Harmon is learning the game. Rating has nothing to do with it.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#4
It’s up to you to resign or not. Stalling is the bad sportsmanship though. Rating does make a difference actually. If you said a 300 rated players loses his queen, he might get it back.
Carwasher_Superdrunk wrote:
Resignation is part of the etiquette of chess, like it or not. When you refuse to resign to an opponent who has a massive material edge, you are insulting your opponent by implicitly stating that you don't think they can actually win. I routinely play people on this site who refuse to resign after blundering a queen, or who are down by even more in the endgame. If your opponent has three queens vs your lone king and you won't resign, you are being a bad sport. So when you are down a queen or more, do the right thing: resign. Don't be a jerk and waste everyone's time with your utterly lost game.
How’s about you prove your skill to convert instead of expecting a free win just because you have a material/positional edge. I don’t know you, I don’t know how good you are, I may not trust your skills to convert, either. Deal with it.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#6
If there’s 2 queens on the board I’m 100% not resigning unless it’s clear you’ve found the pattern to not stalemate me. If not, win it.
“Insulting your opponent by implicitly stating that you don’t think they can actually win.” You see… I actually do believe that they can’t win it. If you’re 10 moves into an advantage and I still see no path or plan for you despite you being up plenty of material, I’m definitely playing on.
Queen blunders aren’t the end of the world especially if you didn’t lose anything else. Instead of complaining here, win the game…
“Insulting your opponent by implicitly stating that you don’t think they can actually win.” You see… I actually do believe that they can’t win it. If you’re 10 moves into an advantage and I still see no path or plan for you despite you being up plenty of material, I’m definitely playing on.
Queen blunders aren’t the end of the world especially if you didn’t lose anything else. Instead of complaining here, win the game…
You're completely wrong. You can resign or not when you want to. You can't force anyone to resign. Cry about it. 
Why is it that in the countless threads where an op rants about their opinion about resigning do they never specify anything about time control or rating or really any other context?
Seeing that it really. really matters. Is it one of those things that people who think their opinion is objective truth tend to not be all that great at recognizing nuance?
Apr 13, 2022
0
#9
Carwasher_Superdrunk wrote:
It's been part of the etiquette of the game for decades and it's even mentioned in The Queens Gambit when Beth Harmon is learning the game. Rating has nothing to do with it.
Interesting fact that some may not know: in the Romantic Era of chess (1700s to mid-1800s), it was considered poor sportsmanship to resign in a lost position.
You were expected to play on, if losing, to allow the winning player the glory of fulfilling his well-earned checkmate.
Only cowards, and spiteful players, chose to resign. A true gentleman played on, and graciously allowed his opponent the satisfaction (and the showmanship) of completing the win.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#10
I can’t figure out how to post pictures in here but, I just lost a game because I ran out of time and my opponent had one second. Yes, one second. I had a queen, they had two pawns, and I could absolutely stop them both from queening. In my opinion it becomes bad etiquette when you refuse to resign and there’s zero chance of you winning. I loved that scene in the queens gambit and could not agree more. But I also agree with one of the previous comments as well, it depends on context. If I still have a Bishop pair, a rook pair, a knight, they’re all active, but I lost my queen earlier in the game, I would play that out for sure. Not resigning as being good etiquette is a funny idea to me, first time I’ve heard that. GM’s never do this, are they all bad sports? The contrary is a sign of intelligence. As soon as you can see the game is lost, you demonstrate you’re at least smart enough to recognize that haha
Carwasher_Superdrunk wrote:
... If your opponent has three queens vs your lone king and you won't resign, you are being a bad sport. So when you are down a queen or more, do the right thing: resign. Don't be a jerk and waste everyone's time with your utterly lost game.
There are two issues here.
1) If a player has promoted multiple extra queens then the opponent has a very realistic chance for a stalemate. As a TD (arbiter) my rule of thumb for games with new players is that a K+Q vs K is a draw 50% of the time and a K+2Q vs K is a draw 90% of the time.
2) The OP is (currently) in the Crystal division and getting points for moving up requires winning a lot of games, preferably ones that finish quickly. There can be issues when somebody that wants a quick win is playing against somebody that wants to play out the game.
dylanpthomas wrote:
I can’t figure out how to post pictures in here but, I just lost a game because I ran out of time and my opponent had one second. Yes, one second. I had a queen, they had two pawns, and I could absolutely stop them both from queening. In my opinion it becomes bad etiquette when you refuse to resign and there’s zero chance of you winning.
Seeing you lost there was better than a zero chance of their winning, no?
Increment is a thing.
jetoba wrote:
1) If a player has promoted multiple extra queens then the opponent has a very realistic chance for a stalemate. As a TD (arbiter) my rule of thumb for games with new players is that a K+Q vs K is a draw 50% of the time and a K+2Q vs K is a draw 90% of the time.
There is also that someone that promotes extra queens rather than just executing a simple checkmate has no business complaining about someone else's bad sportsmanship.
Apr 13, 2022
0
#15
dylanpthomas wrote:
In my opinion it becomes bad etiquette when you refuse to resign and there’s zero chance of you winning.
Allow me to introduce you to Magnus Carlsen 
Magnus got thoroughly outplayed.
No chance of him winning (King+ bishop vs. King+Bishop+3 pawns). But he played on for the flag, regardless.
Magnus is notorious for not resigning in worse positions. He's the kind of player who will play on with just a king vs your whole army, just to make you work for it.
Just like employment!