CHESS ETIQUETTE: Playing On In Ridiculous Positions, etc,

That sounds like good advice to me, at least up to a point.  It's not even about winning and losing, as such.  Are you still playing?  Are you trying to figure out what to do, or what your opponent will do?  Then play on.  Some opponents might prefer you just give up so they get a longer break between rounds, but I don't think anyone is under any obligation to resign until both players not only know who will win, but how.

My only beef is with kids who are just forcing their opponent to watch the clock run down rather than resigning.

same here 

Listen, i'm just taught not to resign cause the game can always go in your favor by one move. Plus, if I lose, I wanna face a good opponent and at least put up a fight. If you didn't notice we're at two different ELO points so what happens to me doesn't happen to you.

same here

It's been years since I played in a chess tournament. And at over 1700 I feel like I have some understanding of the game. But I have never resigned a game of chess in a tournament. I think resigning has less to do with your rating, and more to do with the reasons you play the game. 

You are right, at any point the game can turn in favor. But the higher someones ability, the less likely that will happen with just one careless move. It can happen, but it becomes more and more rare the better someone is. At 1800 people still make incredibly bad moves. It happens all the time. I never resign not because I hope a 1800 will make a bad move, I do it because I feel like I always have a chance to find something good and/or I want to see specifically how the checkmate is done. I also want to give my opponent, who deserves to win so far, the chance to actually do it.

I understand why people resign, but if you are below 2000, or you have specific reasons why you want to see the game continue, it makes sense to not resign.

Not in a tournament, no. I have seen too many really, really, bad moves. But in casual play I will resign if I have something better to do. 

OK. It has always seemed to me that in a tournament the play is more serious, more formal. So for me it makes sense to play until the end. In casual games whether online or in person there is less of a commitment. So if something more important comes up, like a phone call or text, the could easily take precedence over a game of chess. 

That also makes sense. I have played many games of chess, but I have not yet ever played a hopeless one. So I do understand why some people resign in hopeless games, that's just something I've never experienced.

What?!

Never ever blundered a Queen? Or do you just have a very rigid notion of "hopeless"?

That's understandable, but your opponent may want something else.  You have both paid the entry fee.  He has a right to finish the game, if that's what he wants.

Age, experience, and rating may all be relevant here.  

I'm an under 1000 player.  I've found myself paired with a 1400 player.  I could probably resign before starting, but of course I don't.  By the fifth move, I realize he has much better position, and I'm doomed.  On the seventh move he goes up by a pawn.  On the 12th move, a knight.  When should I have resigned?  I think I actually resigned when he went up by one more piece, but I knew I had no hope after he took the first pawn.

So how many moves is it usually before you resign?

You are touching on one of the irresolvable issues here, by which I mean issues which make it impossible to decide on a "right" answer.

Different people have different reasons for being there.  If prize money is your goal, then it's all about who wins and who loses.  That's also true if rating points are your goal.

If you just like the game, you might want to play on just to see exactly how it unfolds.

Based on the NM next to your name, it's unlikely you and I will ever play chess, but just in case you encounter someone who is far inferior to your skill, but who insists that the game be finished by not resigning, remember that in a very real sense, he is the person who is enabling you to win that prize money.  It's his entry fee that you are earning.  Cut him some slack.  If he doesn't come back, you can't win any more money.

I once blundered a queen for two minor pieces, but played on.  I was able to establish a passed pawn and get it to the seventh rank which forced my opponent to put me in a perpetual check so he could get a draw!  I say never give up.  You can learn to be very resourceful and more aggressive in so called hopeless positions.

I was playing a game several months ago.  All he had was his King.  I had a Queen and six pawns.  Instead of checkmating him/her in one move, I proceeded to get 6 knights, put my queen in the corner, and chased his king around the board and finally checkmated him with all knights.  I felt disrespected because his position was hopeless since blundering his rook and queen early in the game. 

Who is at fault here?  Me or him/her?

You

Thats a very thoughtful response. You realize what many other people dont, that different people play the game for different reasons. The rules allow resigning and NOT resigning for exactly that reason. I have a hard time understanding how someone can be offended that another person is playing the game the best way they know how. I agree stalling a game just to irritate the opponent is poor sportsmanship, but for those who genuinely like the company of the other person or simply want to see how the game ends, no harm in that. 

You have an especially good point about tournaments where everyone pays an entry fee. If someone is playing for money, it wouldn't make much sense to come down hard on the very people who are creating the prize fund.

I have played many people who are 400, 600, or even 1,000 points below me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that they want to play to the end. I look at it from their point of view. Insisting that some people should resign is the same as insisting that some people NOT resign.  I think realizing that people play the game for different reasons makes it a lot more enjoyable for everyone.

Great answers!

I have lost a queen (or worse) many, many times. We all have at some point. But none of those games were hopeless. As someone else said, there are probably times where it might be best to resign on move one. If an opponent is rated 1000, 1500, or even 2000 points higher than you it's hopeless right? So why even make the first move? Just resign before the game starts. The reason you make the first move, then maybe the second, and maybe even the third is that you want to see how you do against the opponent. I understand at move 4 you might think you have a chance, and at move 40 you think you have no chance. That makes sense. But what happens at move 40 if you really want to see how the game ends?

For me, hopeless is like a unicorn. There is no such thing. I'll believe it if I ever see it.

I fail to see a fault in the first place. You both are apparently masochists, but that's fine.

I love this passive-aggressive method of education, where the educated person doesn't even know that they are supposed to learn or what they are supposed to learn.