Chess Etiquette

I think it is okay though I won't do that.

Yes. Not only is this poor etiquette, but abandoning games consistently is against chess.com tos and they will be paired with other "poor sport" players or their account warned if this continues. Obviously, abandoning occasionally for unforeseen circumstances like an emergency happens - but if you want to quit, then just resign. 

Now should you resign? This is a topic highly debated. If you are completely lost and with no source of counterplay, then I'd resign. However lower rated players are more likely to not recognize a losing position, or more prone to messing up (which justifies you continuing if losing). 

If speed chess (since low time almost always gives you winning chances by the clock), then I'd almost never resign. Similarly, I wouldn't resign too often until maybe you are at least 1200-1500 chess rating on chess.com By that time, you will have a better understanding about which positions are losing or not. 

Chess grandmasters will resign if they drop a pawn or if they lose all counterplay because they are all good enough to both see the position is lost; however a chess.com player around 1000 rating can easily make a comeback even if they drop their Queen

Since we are on the topic of abandoning games or not though (not debating resignation or not), almost everyone agrees that abandoning games is poor etiquette. In fact, you can even report players to chess.com staff if they abandon games/stall (different if they are actually using their time to think, but by stalling I mean just running out the clock without moving at all like abandoning.

It actually isn't okay; you can report people for abandoning games (although I seldom report them even if it happens to me - maybe they just had an emergency? I'll report them if it is obviously just deliberate stalling though).

Anyone who makes a habit of abandoning games is considered a jerk and ends up only being paired against other jerks. This is frustrating for the jerks, but is a great relief to everyone else.

What is the difference between resigning and abandoning? 

Resigning ends the game immediately, and your opponent can do his own thing.

Abandoning doesn't end the game until you time out, and your opponent must sit there staring at an unmoving board while the clock ticks down. It's very rude and disrespectful toward your opponent.

... Stalling is bad taste... I did it a while back when I was quite frustrated in a few games (2 or something like that) but stopped... 

Stalling is like deliberately not closing game but just going to another tab and letting the whole clock run out... 

Abandonment is less worse when u feel frustrated its only a minute but still...

Here's a question: why would anyone abandon a game instead of resigning (assuming the game is clearly lost) when resigning is literally one click away? The only reason I can think of is to annoy your opponent out of spite. Is that rude?

Well, I can think of one more: you just couldn't care less about the game you lost and the player you lost it to. Not very polite either.

What is the difference between resigning and abandoning? 

Resigning ends the game immediately, and your opponent can do his own thing.

Abandoning doesn't end the game until you time out, and your opponent must sit there staring at an unmoving board while the clock ticks down. It's very rude and disrespectful toward your opponent.

Oh I can't believe that this would even be under debate. That seems like a total dick move to just let your game time out. 

Rude. Never act this way.

Respect your opponent.

Agreed. There are lots of immature players who pull that dick move, though.

Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I’m a chess coach based and chess book author based in California: www.ChessByLauren.com.

  I would resign instead of abandoning the game.  Since you are a beginner, I suggest to never resign in any game.  Your opponent could accidentally stalemate you, which is a draw.  

I hope that this helps.  

I hate it when people abandon the game. It just doesn’t make sense.

It is ALWAYS when they are losing . When they lost a rook and queen for example ...

I wander WHY they do this? What’s the point? First of all , it is really obvious when

you do it on THAT moment. 

I really don’t understand why they just don’t resign. The result is the same ... the points and the win will go to the other guy .  

so.... why? 

If you're going to abandon definitely resign instead. I had a game in which I was losing but had just made what I thought was a pretty clever (for me, 950 rating) move, attacking my opponent's queen with my knight and discovering check with my rook. The player promptly went "on vacation" and the game sat there in my queue for probably at least a month before it timed out. It was frustrating to see it at the top of the list every time I played, especially in the midst of a couple losing streaks where it would have been nice to feel like I had an advantage in at least one game.