glamdring, reverse can also happen. You can hold off resigning, your opponent skyrockets up to their true rating, and you just lose a couple of points as you should have. Especially true when an expert first joins Chess.com.
People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.
Sort:
LadyMisil wrote:
glamdring, reverse can also happen. You can hold off resigning, your opponent skyrockets up to their true rating, and you just lose a couple of points as you should have. Especially true when an expert first joins Chess.com.
Similar situation in a practice game a couple of months ago. I'm paired against an opponent of similar rating, but he's only played about 15 games (all wins). His rating went up over 150 pts while we were playing and the game only lasted 2 days.
glamdring27 wrote:
Not resigning in a daily chess game can also be costly too if you care about rating points. I've often started a game against a similarly rated opponent only for them to drop a load of rating points over the course of our game, then I lose and ship a load of rating points because they are now 200 points below me!
Check their Glicko RD. A high number 130+ for example means their rating is subject to wild swings. You can't do much about the ones who lose 20 consecutive games on timeouts for whatever reason
Aug 1, 2018
0
#1845
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:
Yes, we should have an option where we can make our opponents resign when we want them to. I don't see any potential problems with that idea.
Do you even hear yourself talk ?
LadyMisil wrote:
Well first, I do not think there is any kind of obligation to “sportsmanship” on the Internet. I used to be just like Enderman, and politely resigning in lost positions, until I noticed a number of opponents being “unsportsmanlike”. Well, I soon found out there is no accountability on the Internet. There is no Internet police to enforce laws, much less niceties and polite behavior. The Internet is a verbal wild, Wild West. To anyone crying for fairness, or for following unspoken rules of behavior, much less politeness ... well, good luck!
My first comment (in another forum for another game, not chess) was an innocent one in which I made a good, polite suggestion. Someone misunderstood, and before you knew it, war broke out on that forum. The Internet is a totally different thing from real life. And so it is with online chess as opposed to sitting with a friend and playing a nice game of chess for both of you to enjoy. Totally different. And still a bit different from tournament chess. So any comparison with Internet chess and real life chess is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.
Also, there are many different kinds of people and players who get online. Some may have never entered a real life tournament before. Some may still be in grade school. Some may just want a friendly game to pass the time and not exercise their chess skills to the limit. How can there be one code of conduct for everyone on the Internet, even if it could be enforced which it cannot? So why try?
Accept the way things are and you will be a lot less frustrated, Enderman. That or give up Internet chess.
Or get Chess.com to create and enforce “Sportsmanship” rules. I would even be on your side if you could do that.
I guess we're just different. I try to actually be reasonable and do the right thing, and you're a psychopath who only helps other people when you absolutely have to, as evidenced by your argument that you shouldn't be sportsmanlike because you don't have to. Considering that the argument at hand is whether anyone should be reasonably expected to resign, you're non-existent empathetic skills are probably going to limit you from understanding this topic. I think it's best if you just disable notifications from the forum, and go discuss a topic where you have a little more "authority"
lol!
lfPatriotGames wrote:
I've never resigned in a lost position. Mostly because a lost position is already lost, the game is literally over. A lost position is checkmate or someones clock has run out, so it wouldnt make any sense to resign AFTER the game is over. Lost is past tense. That would be like suggesting a draw with only two kings left on the board.
I have resigned losing positions though. But very rarely. I think both ladymisil and silledad have really good points, and we have to take into consideration the extremely wide range of players for online chess. This isn't a chess tournament in a hotel convention room.
I almost never resign a chess game because of the reasons I play chess. I play for the companionship, the interaction, and as a result hopefully the fun. Resigning would defeat my whole purpose for playing. I have resigned if I or the other person has to leave, but usually in that case we both resign. (not call it a draw). But I've probably only resigned about a dozen games ever in my whole life solely because of a bad position.
Here's the general chess vocabulary, to the best of my knowledge
Lost Game: A game that you've lost
Lost Position: A position that is hopeless to play on, as you're sure to lose.
Losing Position: A position where your opponent has a very strong advantage, but is not sure to win.
Worse Position: A position where your opponent has a moderate advantage.
From my experience, these are the definitions used, and it would make the most sense to roll with them. However, if you want to keep using your definitions, just replace every instance of lost with losing, and losing with worse.
amiakr8 wrote:
I probably resign too quickly. I'll resign if I'm likely to lose and I don't want to waste the time on it, or I just want it off my screen
I used to do that too, but I tried playing on in bad positions in blitz games and I did pretty good. Totally get not wanting to play some positions, it depends on the player.
PawnCabbage wrote:
I played a game in which my opponent was up +12. Unfortunately for him, I did not resign, and although he had a second Queen, I managed to checkmate him in an incredible way. It was a very messy game, but still, my heart went out to my opponent at the end.
Props to you, that's the most extreme comeback I've seen on this page. Still, good players know how to avoid counterplay in positions like that. Try that against me (1700 lichess, I don't use chess.com much anymore) 100 times and you won't get close once. Hence why virtually all 1800+ players will resign eventually against an equal opponent.
LadyMisil wrote:
The trick to dealing with timeouts, vacations, and long games like 14 days/move is not to think about them at all. Just worry about the games that you need to move before you next logon. If you find yourself waiting all the time, sign up for more games. If you have trouble remembering your plans, make notes on the game (program is set up just for you to make your own game notes.). There are a lot of ways that you can deal with problems in Internet chess besides asking, demanding, threatening, or crying to your opponent to help you with your impatience.
We're not really talking about playing on in daily games, that's pretty insignificant, as you don't have to sit at the computer waiting for your opponent.
But thanks for jumping right into being nasty anyways, really helps get your point across.
MindControl116 wrote:
Enderman1323 escribió:
silledad wrote:
@Enderman1323. Here here!! While it may be frustrating to persons on the opposite end Every player has the right to play out their game and learn from it. Every human chess player blunders ( and can recall losing a won game as a result of an oversight/mistake etc. At best they recover and manage a draw at worst they lose and learn. In each case had their opponent resigned when it was "apparent" they were going to lose, they would not have been able to have earned the win or draw ( "stalemates by sloppy end game play not withstanding" ). This is a timeless argument and one that is perpetuated by players learning the game on both ends; however outside of the discussions and good points for not resigning made here, I will refer all to Mr. GSerper's well summarised article published on the subject on chess.com. In the end he states that the best way to end your frustration with players who don't resign is to "Learn to mate them efficiently". Chess is a contest that you are trying to win. Learn your mating patterns and end games to bring it to its quickest conclusion . If I am on the other end I will expect no less and learn from the experience. If I am on the winning end, I likewise will look to practice my end games in these scenarios. .
Oh yes. Players are legally allowed to waste their time playing on in a hopeless position. I'm also legally allowed to call you an idiot, which means that you must be an idiot. You can be losing, but have hope for a draw/win. You can also be losing and not have hope for a draw/win. Examples of playing on in the former don't prove it's reasonable in the latter. The vast majority of 1600+ rated players know when to resign, they're smart enough to see that some positions just don't have any hope.
Never resigning at a reasonably high level of play shouldn't be considered "acceptable" because the opponent should "just deal with it". You might get enjoyment out of playing out 20+ more moves in a winning position so you can find a fast mate, but not many other people do. Projecting feelings you claim to possess onto other people isn't an argument.
"Projecting feelings you claim to possess onto other people isn't an argument."
How ironic. You literally just contradicted yourself. This very claim of yours already debunks your stance. Debate over.
Here you go, Einstein: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Not that my argument had any fallacy in the first place, considering that
1. My last argument still stands, he literally admits to projecting his feelings, with "If I am on the other end I will expect no less and learn from the experience. If I am on the winning end, I likewise will look to practice my end games in these scenarios."
2. I'm projecting my tendency to project onto someone else? When else have I projected my feelings onto someone else?
But it's interesting you only acknowledged the last sentence of my argument, instead of trying to refute any of my other points.
Good job, this sets a record for the most flawed argument I've ever seen in my life. I'm not exaggerating, I'm not being sarcastic, this is literally the most perfectly terrible argument I have ever come across, and it's only two sentences
Enderman1323 wrote:
amiakr8 wrote:
I probably resign too quickly. I'll resign if I'm likely to lose and I don't want to waste the time on it, or I just want it off my screen
I used to do that too, but I tried playing on in bad positions in blitz games and I did pretty good. Totally get not wanting to play some positions, it depends on the player.
I was actually talking about daily games. Some lost positions could theoretically take over a month to reach checkmate. About the player who said the internet was not like playing in a hotel conference room. ( About just letting time expire when they're dead lost). I've had an opponent disappear for about an hour with mate in one or two pending only to reappear with about a minute left on the clock. That's actually happened several times.
LadyMisil wrote:
LadyMisil wrote: ... There are a lot of ways that you can deal with problems in Internet chess besides asking, demanding, threatening, or crying to your opponent to help you with your impatience.
amiakr8 wrote: None of the above. I rarely communicate with an opponent. (Twice in 200+ games). I'm just not temperamentally suited to play a game where the Earth has time to make another trip around the sun before it's over.
To Amiakr8 from LadyM: My above comment was not meant for you, but I am glad that you do not harass your opponents in any way.
If I played a live chess game, real life or Internet, I would not wish to wait a day for it to end either. Playing for 24 straight hours on a single game is not to my taste, although I am betting someone out there likes marathons.
But with regular Internet chess, it is like postal chess. Then I do not mind if a game takes months or years to end. I got what I signed up for.
As for being concerned at all about any one single game? Well, everyone has better things to do. I simply make sure that I logon twice a day, more if I feel like it, and play those games that are ready for me to play. If an opponent goes on vacation, I never notice until they come back. As for taking a long time with each move, I never notice that either. I am too busy playing the games in which it is my turn to make a move.
So it is all about time management and not worrying about your opponents. And if you have an easy won game but your opponent plays on and that upsets you, you can always end the game by resigning your win. It is just a game. Nothing to worry your life about.
For people that need their opponents to resign, I suggest never playing Internet chess and playing only real life chess with good friends or at real life tournaments. Chess.com and Internet chess simply is not the place for you.
However, maybe you are one of those kind of people that like to complain. Then by all means, stay here and complain about how people do not resign. For that matter complain about grandmaster draws, bad luck, and whatever suits your fancy. This is the right place for complainers, these forums.
1. Seriously, fix your formatting. This is a headache to sort through
2. You're incessantly complaining about other people "complaining". However, whereas we're debating about the etiquette of resignation, you're just being obnoxious and unhelpful.
3. You completely dodge the point of whether it's justified to play on in lost positions. Telling people they can't force other people to resign isn't relevant to the debate, it's like you know you can't win the topic of the debate, so you try to change it
Seriously, grow up or get off the forum.
LadyMisil wrote:
Oh, I just remembered another reason why a smart player on this website might have for to not resign in a lost position - for manipulating their rating. With a low rating, it helps in a team match. Underrated players have better chances against their opponents of same rating. With tournaments, there might be rating restrictions. So a smart player could save up their lost positions and resign them all at once to drop their rating. I used to be on a team in which the SA came up with this idea, but that was years ago. Forgot all about it till now. So a player not resigning a lost position may have 2 good reasons not to, especially if they are a loyal team player. 1) They may suspect you of cheating and their best strategy then is to play slow and hope you get caught before the game ends (and counts) or 2) they may be using their won and lost positions to manipulate their rating.
Perhaps surprisingly, this is completely allowed under the chess.com rules, there's no rules at all against sandbagging/rating manipulation.
However, this is an extremely specific example. I concede that in this *extremely specific* case, you are justified in drawing out the game. This really doesn't change the debate much
Edit: Also, I've said before drawing out daily games really doesn't matter too much, your opponent doesn't have to sit at the board waiting for you to move.
amiakr8 wrote:
Enderman1323 wrote:
amiakr8 wrote:
I probably resign too quickly. I'll resign if I'm likely to lose and I don't want to waste the time on it, or I just want it off my screen
I used to do that too, but I tried playing on in bad positions in blitz games and I did pretty good. Totally get not wanting to play some positions, it depends on the player.
I was actually talking about daily games. Some lost positions could theoretically take over a month to reach checkmate. About the player who said the internet was not like playing in a hotel conference room. ( About just letting time expire when they're dead lost). I've had an opponent disappear for about an hour with mate in one or two pending only to reappear with about a minute left on the clock. That's actually happened several times.
Yeah, that's really annoying. I missed your follow up comment, it was on the next page, and by the time I saw it I was too lazy to go back.
Interesting fact, the longest forced mate in a legal position, under the 50 move rule, is a 270 move composition by Otto blathy. 270 moves * 2 players * 2 weeks = 1080 weeks ~=20 years is the longest a won position could be drawn on for.
I probably wouldn't live long enough to finish such a game.
Aug 2, 2018
0
#1857
The question of the thread was about the player on the winning side having expectations of their opponent resigning. That's different to whether the player on the losing side themselves should feel like they have to resign.
I regularly resign quickly, though sometimes I also play on just because I'm allowed to and I want to. I never have expectations of my opponent resigning though because it's just plain stupid. Chess etiquette is for people who want to feel superior by claiming they have some, but there's a good reason why things are not in the rules. Some people think it is bad etiquette to not accept a rematch, some people think it is bad etiquette not to resign when you are a bishop down or to force your opponent to actually win the game in what little time they have left on their clock having taken too much time getting into their winning position. It's all just subjective though.
Being polite is just being polite, it's nothing to do with some silly notion of 'etiquette'. But it's hard to see where politeness comes into online chess apart from in chat and I always have that disabled anyway. Someone who isn't willing to play out a whole game doesn't have the temperament to be playing chess. Equally someone who plays on just for the sake of it when thy have no chance is also lacking in the right temperament, but it's wrong for their opponent to expect resignation, just because it is sensible on their part to resign. You should expect to have to checkmate your opponent in every online game, though at the level I play it is very rare except in Bullet or fast Blitz.
Aug 2, 2018
0
#1858
Enderman1323 escribió:
MindControl116 wrote:
Enderman1323 escribió:
silledad wrote:
@Enderman1323. Here here!! While it may be frustrating to persons on the opposite end Every player has the right to play out their game and learn from it. Every human chess player blunders ( and can recall losing a won game as a result of an oversight/mistake etc. At best they recover and manage a draw at worst they lose and learn. In each case had their opponent resigned when it was "apparent" they were going to lose, they would not have been able to have earned the win or draw ( "stalemates by sloppy end game play not withstanding" ). This is a timeless argument and one that is perpetuated by players learning the game on both ends; however outside of the discussions and good points for not resigning made here, I will refer all to Mr. GSerper's well summarised article published on the subject on chess.com. In the end he states that the best way to end your frustration with players who don't resign is to "Learn to mate them efficiently". Chess is a contest that you are trying to win. Learn your mating patterns and end games to bring it to its quickest conclusion . If I am on the other end I will expect no less and learn from the experience. If I am on the winning end, I likewise will look to practice my end games in these scenarios. .
Oh yes. Players are legally allowed to waste their time playing on in a hopeless position. I'm also legally allowed to call you an idiot, which means that you must be an idiot. You can be losing, but have hope for a draw/win. You can also be losing and not have hope for a draw/win. Examples of playing on in the former don't prove it's reasonable in the latter. The vast majority of 1600+ rated players know when to resign, they're smart enough to see that some positions just don't have any hope.
Never resigning at a reasonably high level of play shouldn't be considered "acceptable" because the opponent should "just deal with it". You might get enjoyment out of playing out 20+ more moves in a winning position so you can find a fast mate, but not many other people do. Projecting feelings you claim to possess onto other people isn't an argument.
"Projecting feelings you claim to possess onto other people isn't an argument."
How ironic. You literally just contradicted yourself. This very claim of yours already debunks your stance. Debate over.
Here you go, Einstein: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Not that my argument had any fallacy in the first place, considering that
1. My last argument still stands, he literally admits to projecting his feelings, with "If I am on the other end I will expect no less and learn from the experience. If I am on the winning end, I likewise will look to practice my end games in these scenarios."
2. I'm projecting my tendency to project onto someone else? When else have I projected my feelings onto someone else?
But it's interesting you only acknowledged the last sentence of my argument, instead of trying to refute any of my other points.
Good job, this sets a record for the most flawed argument I've ever seen in my life. I'm not exaggerating, I'm not being sarcastic, this is literally the most perfectly terrible argument I have ever come across, and it's only two sentences
"Here you go, Einstein..."
I know what the fallacy fallacy is. I studied formal logic in college, as well as other philosophy courses. I never actually committed this fallacy, because I never said you were wrong, I said you cotradicted yourself, which is different. Contradicting yourself debunks your stance, not because it is wrong, but because it creates a contradiction, violating the principle of non-contradiction, and hence invalidating the argument. Not to mention that your entire argument is precisely a projection of feelings into others. You feel as though it is disrespectful and annoying to play against someone who does not resign, and are using this as an excuse to try to justify the claim that these people are unreasonable, even though it does not actually imply it. This is not only non-sequitur, but it results in a contradiction immediately when you claim that projecting your feelings is not an argument.
Since you misrepresented my argument too, let me direct you https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Oh, and since you tried justifying calling someone an idiot in the discussion, let me also direct you to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
"My last argument still stands, he literally admits to projecting his feelings, with "If I am on the other end I will expect no less and learn from the experience. If I am on the winning end, I likewise will look to practice my end games in these scenarios.""
He did project his feelings, and so did you. I could care less about your feelings of annoyance from playing a position that is lost. A game is never lost until the checkmate happens, or until resignation occurs. This nonsense "if you are in a lost position, then the game is already lost" is false, and it can eb proven false by counterexample. See, whether the theory says a player should resign at a certain lost position or not, this is irrelevant, because such an argument relies on the false presumption that the player will always play the correct move in a situation where their win is otherwise guaranteed. I have played games with people with equal skill as myself, if not more skilled, who have drawn the game or have lost it despite the fact that the theory would predict that they should win against all odds. This happens because humans are very imperfect. And I'm not talking about skill-imperfect, I'm talking about existence-imperfect. There are hundreds of factors that are attacking and influencing a player in the middle of a match, whether it'd be a friendly match or a tournament match, and these have nothing to do with sportsmanship. They may be feeling very sick and due to the pain, they may lose track of what their plan was when starting a variation of moves, or they could just be people with a mental condition of abnormal absent-mindedness. They could be emotionally strained, either due to the pressure that comes with playing in a tournament, or they could be strained by the sight of their opponent for a number of personal psychological reasons. These are factors that one cannot combat completely, so they will inevitably have an effect on the player. As such, players, even grandmasters, will sometimes make mistakes in a position that was otherwise completely hopeless for their opponent, and this mistake will give the opponent a chance for recovery. One cannot account for them, one cannot know or predict what are the factors that have the strongest influence on your opponent, or what goes through their mind, but one fact remains: there is a non-zero chance that your oppnent will blunder at least once. One cannot expect the opponent to blunder, but one can hope for it, and this non-zero chance validates one's decision to not resign in a so-called "theoretically lost position". Saying that you're feeling annoyed and that you don't want to waste time playing a game that you know is theoretically lost and that they should just resign is precisely a projection of your feelings, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I provided sufficient logical reason to justify not resigning in a lost position. You claim it is bad sportsmanship to make your opponent waste time, and I claim that this claim has no logical justification provided, and that furthermore, it is bad sportsmanship to claim that your opponent should not keep playing a game that they have a non-zero chance of winning just because you're too picky to play a game to its end.
"2. I'm projecting my tendency to project onto someone else? When else have I projected my feelings onto someone else?"
I already explained.
"But it's interesting you only acknowledged the last sentence of my argument, instead of trying to refute any of my other points."
They were already refuted, so I had no need to refute them myself. Any reason with sufficient usage of logical reasoning will immediately spot the flaws in your argument. Instead, I questioned the foundation of your stance rather than the actual points to justify the stance, since that would be more productive in the case of someone who is dogmatic.
"Good job, this sets a record for the most flawed argument I've ever seen in my life."
I'm not bothered, considering that your standards of what a flawed argument is are pretty rigged, especially when you went out of your way to misrepresent my argument. This conversation is pretty brainless.
"I'm not exaggerating, I'm not being sarcastic, this is literally the most perfectly terrible argument I have ever come across, and it's only two sentences..."
It's still a better argument than you several pages long argument distributed in pieces to about a dozen of users.
"Hence why virtually all 1800+ players will resign eventually against an equal opponent."
Where is the source of your statistic?
"I try to actually be reasonable and do the right thing,..."
There isn't a right thing to do, there is only reasonable and unreasonable. The only aspect in which ethics concern sports is in the aspect of what we call fair play and expressed attitudes about a game or player. And as I've explained, it is unreasonable to waste the non-zero chance you have to turn the game around in the face of a possible unexpected blunder, especially because there is no downside to it for you. It may be a downside for the opponent, but why should you particularly care about what counts as a downside for the opponent when you're only playing the game for yourself with the obvious goal of winning? Besides, it isn't as though you, Enderman, specifically care about your opponent either, since you actually believe the opponent is an asshole for using a chance to enjoy the game as well as to maybe turn around the game in the face of human circumstances whenever a lost positoin exists.
"...and you're a psychopath who only helps other people when you absolutely have to, as evidenced by your argument that you shouldn't be sportsmanlike because you don't have to."
Where is your doctorate degree that certificates that you are a reliable agent to make a rational analysis to be able to diagnose people especifically with mental illnesses? Where is your lists of symptons and data collected from the patient? Oh, also, ad-hominem, by the way. You should just fuck off at this point, because you're not even being respectful.
"Considering that the argument at hand is whether anyone should be reasonably expected to resign, you're non-existent empathetic skills are probably going to limit you from understanding this topic."
I will claim exactly the same thing concerning you, since you seem to think that humans are either perfect robots, or that they shouldn't enjoy the game the way they want to as long as they follow the rules and treat you civilly, and that they shouldn't profit from non-zero chances to achieve something good in the game.
"I think it's best if you just disable notifications from the forum, and go discuss a topic where you have a little more "authority""
This isn't a question of authority. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy too. You're not an authority in the rules of chess, nor are you an authority on the rules of ethics and sportsmanship, so I could care less about your rating or your feelings about not wanting to play for extra precious time. If you're really that concerned about time, then playing chess is not a reasonable option for you anyway, unless you choose to play blitz or bullet, in which case knock yourself out.
All the other points are too far back in the conversation, and they're not worth addressing since other people already addressed them.
Aug 2, 2018
0
#1859
glamdring27 escribió:
The question of the thread was about the player on the winning side having expectations of their opponent resigning. That's different to whether the player on the losing side themselves should feel like they have to resign.
I regularly resign quickly, though sometimes I also play on just because I'm allowed to and I want to. I never have expectations of my opponent resigning though because it's just plain stupid. Chess etiquette is for people who want to feel superior by claiming they have some, but there's a good reason why things are not in the rules. Some people think it is bad etiquette to not accept a rematch, some people think it is bad etiquette not to resign when you are a bishop down or to force your opponent to actually win the game in what little time they have left on their clock having taken too much time getting into their winning position. It's all just subjective though.
Being polite is just being polite, it's nothing to do with some silly notion of 'etiquette'. But it's hard to see where politeness comes into online chess apart from in chat and I always have that disabled anyway. Someone who isn't willing to play out a whole game doesn't have the temperament to be playing chess. Equally someone who plays on just for the sake of it when thy have no chance is also lacking in the right temperament, but it's wrong for their opponent to expect resignation, just because it is sensible on their part to resign. You should expect to have to checkmate your opponent in every online game, though at the level I play it is very rare except in Bullet or fast Blitz.
Very well said.
glamdring27 wrote:
The question of the thread was about the player on the winning side having expectations of their opponent resigning. That's different to whether the player on the losing side themselves should feel like they have to resign.
I regularly resign quickly, though sometimes I also play on just because I'm allowed to and I want to. I never have expectations of my opponent resigning though because it's just plain stupid. Chess etiquette is for people who want to feel superior by claiming they have some, but there's a good reason why things are not in the rules. Some people think it is bad etiquette to not accept a rematch, some people think it is bad etiquette not to resign when you are a bishop down or to force your opponent to actually win the game in what little time they have left on their clock having taken too much time getting into their winning position. It's all just subjective though.
Being polite is just being polite, it's nothing to do with some silly notion of 'etiquette'. But it's hard to see where politeness comes into online chess apart from in chat and I always have that disabled anyway. Someone who isn't willing to play out a whole game doesn't have the temperament to be playing chess. Equally someone who plays on just for the sake of it when thy have no chance is also lacking in the right temperament, but it's wrong for their opponent to expect resignation, just because it is sensible on their part to resign. You should expect to have to checkmate your opponent in every online game, though at the level I play it is very rare except in Bullet or fast Blitz.
"There's a good reason why it's not in the rules" Yeah, because it's impossible to measure. There's no fair objective way to determine whether someone should resign or not. It depends on things like player rating, the playstyle of the players involved, and the time control of the game.
As far as etiquette goes, it doesn't matter what word you use to describe it. In certain situations, it's obnoxious and unreasonable to continue to play after a certain point. By your claims, it's perfectly acceptable to start 60 minute games, get into a bad position after 15 minutes, and wait 45 minutes to make another move so your opponent has to wait it out.
"There's a good reason why things are not in the rules". Yes. It's impossible to have a general rule for this kind of thing because there are too many variables that play into when someone should resign. You'd need to have a system for forcing resignation that relies on:
1. Player rating
2. Style of both players
3. Time control
and be completely infallible, so that it could never be enforced unfairly.
it's wrong for their opponent to expect resignation, just because it is sensible on their part to resign. You should expect to have to checkmate your opponent in every online game, though at the level I play it is very rare except in Bullet or fast Blitz.
By expect resignation, I don't mean that I'm not prepared to play out if my opponent decides to be stubborn, I mean that I find it annoying and pointless to play on.
"it's hard to see where politeness comes into online chess apart from the chat"
It's "polite" to resign games. I've said this already.
Silledad, wish I could take credit for it, but it was my SA’s idea. I was just admin in that group. Guess that’s why she was my boss ... she had the brains, lol!