People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

When I'm down to a position where my loss looks inevitable I resign. To me if I continue its dishonorable. If your opponents rating is way low, and they don't have to skill level to finish you off that's one thing. But if their rating is high enough to reliably do the job? Then it just looks like you are saying that you don't think they are good enough. Or that its just cry baby stuff. Wah! I'm losing but I'll draw this out senselessly to irritate you.

I don't understand why, if someone is winning, they would be irritated. Maybe if someone is irritated at having a winning position it might be because it's unfamiliar to them. They may not know what to do next. This would be a good time to not resign.

Besides, the very objective of chess is checkmate. The rules of the game, or any online description define the objective of chess as being checkmate. It's usually within the first couple sentences.

In my experience the best time to resign is after the checkmate, rarely before it.

These people moaning about others not resigning when they decree that they should are just about the most childish and irritating thing about online chess. It's only online.

When I play OTB I very rarely see anyone continuing to play when its hopeless. I see the times that there are real chances for stalemate. That's different. But looking someone in the eyeballs and continuing to play? No, it rarely happens. Go to a tournament and see. Its considered childish and rude. Not to mention that others are waiting for the next round to begin. I've seen a tournament director adjudicate a game for that very reason. There are exceptions. Such as knight, bishop, and king vs king. Its difficult but not impossible to checkmate then. But I think that its one of the reasons for the 50 move rule.

If it is within the rules it is fine. People trying to impose their own ideas of sportsmanship on others are the worst kind of individuals. If a game is so hopeless that someone 'should resign' then conversely it is so easy for the other player to win they should just get on with doing it. Resigning is just an optional shortcut to end a game, not something compulsory.

A tournament director had no right to adjudicate a game without the permission of both participants if one or both were continuing to play for a win within the accepted time controls for the game. If the T.D. set time controls that were wrong, s/he would have some explaining to do and would probably look like a fool. Rounds normally begin at set times.
:
I have very often played on in losing positions in tournaments and will only resign if not only I am in a losing position but when my opponent has given me all the evidence I need that s/he's going to win. The odds are that I've won more otb tournaments than others here. If I think I have half a percent chance of a swindle I play on, unless I need my energy for the next round. No-one ever complained, possibly because it's my right to play on or possibly because I've won so many tournaments and they knew it. This is in the past & I haven't played a tournament for 20 years.

I've pulled off wins from terrible positions before. It slightly creeps me out that someone would be mad at me for doing that otb.

They have the right to look like morons. Mic drop.

People should play the game out until the end. If they think they'll lose, they can resign. But I plan on then finishing anyway. I usually do.

Toying with an opponent who won't resign can be fun. I like to try to stretch the game out as long as possible by running rooks back and forth, pushing a pawn every 40 moves, etc. I've gotten well over 200 moves, haven't made it to 300 yet. If you run your time up to twenty or thirty minutes you can set up a mate-in-one position and then mix yourself a rum and Coke and take the dog for a walk. Of course there's a theoretical possibility that you could blunder it away, but probably no more so than in "regular" chess.

I don't think anything about them, and I certainly don't do anything about them. I play on and eventually checkmate them. I don't understand why anyone would be frustrated by that. To me it's frustrating when someone resigns one move before checkmate.

Resigning is unique to chess anyway and a strange concept to me. Imagine a resignation in football, basketball, baseball, tennis, golf, soccer or any other sport or game. How weird would that be?

I rarely ever resign because I want to see if I can get a stalemate

Played a game yesterday where I was dead lost, 2 rooks and 7 pawns to a rook and 5 pawns, I was waiting to be mated or for him to promote, but then he blundered m2 and I won so anything can happen

Hi

I dislike FIDE. Just saying.

good point

agreed

tho idm when ppl resign with mate one move away rly

No, it's a bad point. A pretty terrible point. Useless. It wouldn't matter if chess were the only recreation which is resignable but what about boxing for a start? What about snooker? It's the norm there not to play on even if it's winnable, if it's exceptionally unlikely.