I think resigning a game shows a player`s chess knowledge.

People do not resign either they don`t see what`s going on on the table(this is the worst), or they wait his opponent to get an heart attack (this is hopeless:), or they play like computers (this is not that bad but people might call that player "computer guy").

Kasparov, Fisher, Tal etc. all of those great players resigned some of their games and they were still considered the world best players not losers :))

Here is just one example from Kasparov:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r1sM9Fvbms

He resigned at this game but he was still the number one chess player at that time.

a grandmaster resigned in a winning game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7p4G78WWD8

if he was forced to play on instead of having the option to resign - maybe he would have found the winning move.

Are there other games where casual players are expected to resign? I suck at scrabble; I'll try resigning next time I play after my opponent has a huge lead and there is almost zero chance of a comeback. They will probably call me a poor sport and not invite me to play again. Perhaps professional scrabble players (if there is such a thing) resign, but I am amateur playing with other amateurs and what the professionals do is not super relevant playing at my kitchen table. 10 years ago I resigned from a croquet game and that still gets brought up today by my family. In multiplayer video games quitting a hopelessly lost round is called a "rage quitting".

There is a stark contrast between resigning in chess and so called "rage-quitting". Converting certain advantages is routine, and there is nothing to be gained by either player in say a K+2P vs. K+R+3P. Your opponent may rather attend to something more important than play out such a trivial win. Resigning is not confined to chess either, it is commonplace in snooker, for example, for a player to resign when he requires more than one snooker to have a chance of winning a frame. 

I know last time I said something on this topic I felt pretty foolish for what I had believed by the time I read all the other posts, but as far as someone getting angry at another player for resigning or for not resigning, I feel that is bad sportsmanship.  I feel that any player should have the right to resign whenever they feel the game is hopless, no fun, no moves left, or for any other reason they should happen to choose.  I also feel the player should have the right to continue on in any game they choose all the way until checkmate is called no matter how hopeless it may seem for them.  Who knows, maybe they just want to see what choice of moves the other player will decide to use so they can try to see chess from a different angle.  I feel that any player should have the right to choose if or when to resign without any pressure to do so or not do so.  Chess is a game and is supposed to be fun.  If a player resigns to me just because they don't think it is fun anymore even if the game is up for grabs, so be it.  I'm not going to lose any sleep over it and I'll just start a new game.  I never understood that people on both sides of the issue felt so strongly about what they believed about what is considered proper etiquette for resigning in chess.

I totally agree with you now SunConure, but just a little earlier you were saying something completely different.

I'm still new to this format of chess and new to competitive chess.  I'm still trying to figure out what is considered proper protocol.  I know I really don't care if someone else resigns, but it seems I have offended some other people by resigning.  It won't change my view of how to feel if someone I'm playing against resigns, but I still want to do the right thing myself in the games I play against others.  Some people are offended by playing a game through that seems pointless to continue but it seems that a whole lot more people get very offended if I choose to resign.  I'm must trying to figure out what is considered good etiquette and it seems that whatever feedback I've seen on here everybody seems to have a legitimate answer for why they feel the way they feel about this issue.  I understand the idea of cheating a person out of the satisfaction of completing their win and not acting childish by "quitting" and I also understand the people who feel it is a waste of their time to continue on when I am down by two rooks, a queen and a knight to have to go through the motions of finishing a game against a lost cause.  Personally, I feel that since it is just a game it isn't worth getting upset about.  I expect that in chess, as in golf, that anything played on  a public venue there are going to be standards of conduct and etiquette that are expected to be followed and those who play are expected to know but you won't find them in writing anywhere and the only time someone will tell you about it is if you violate one of these standards.  This, however seems to be an issue with plenty of people willing to take up the torch for the side they feel is right and it seems there are as many on one side of the issue as there are on the other.  I just want to find out what is considered the proper way to deal with this issue because it looks like no matter what side I'm on on this, someone is going to get angry about it.

I had a game where I got the opponents queen very early (just didn't see it, it was a knight that captured it) and I thought well that's it for them but eventually I got into a little bind and had to struggle to win. This was a 1700+ rated player. A queen can be sacrificed for the greater good.The point of the game is to get their king not how many pieces you have. I actually like to play on even when it looks hopeless but I will resign when the hammer is falling.

So you make your opponent convert the game and then deny him the satisfaction of the final mating combination? Is this your way of having the last say?

No, I never said I wanted my opponent to resign, in fact, I welcome it. I was pointing out that even if you lose a queen early, there still is a lot of game left.

Actually I don't agree to resign a game after losing just a piece or the queen. However, calling someone "sore loser" just because he resigns the game doesn't seem right to me.

Maybe this game can be an example for a "sore loser";

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMiLXbGxUgs

End of the game Mato says: "Bardeleben didn't resign. He stared at 25-Rxh7+, shot a glance at Steinitz, and without a word got up from his chair and left the room. He didn't come back.... Stainitz had to wait for Bardeleben's time to run out.."

In blitz games resigning is very rare and I would never resign because getting a draw can maaay be possible under some preassure. However, tournament games are way different because most of the time, the clocks will be having at least 2 second delays that means if the position lost it is lost. You cannot gain time playing faster than your opponent. You can only stall the game.

"Isin't [sic] resigning being a sore loser?"

A: No.

Isn't expecting your opponent not to resign, because you normally aren't savvy enough to checkmate without them seeing it coming, just another way of complaining, that is as obvious as your mating attempts, to anyone paying attention ? Apparently, you are the only one fooled...

...besides, playing for a draw, or hoping your opponents slips up, while you practice making the best moves, while in a losing position and trying to learn how to do more with less, is really good practice. Some players like to take the queens off of the board, since some people lean on certain pieces too much and it hinders their overall game.

I enjoy checkmating and hunting another's king so much, I don't give a $#!t less if someone won't resign, to me this further evidence of why you are bothered by them resigning. Most good players are exactly the opposite, they want them to resign. It stands to reason, simply winning isn't satisfying enough for you yet. Practice tactics often, if you are bent on having to checkmate. BTW, go check out the thread....who is the greatest attacker of alltime.....when you do, find the post with the checkmate % of the best Gm's in the modern era.....their numbers will hopefully put it into better perspective for you.....

ModernElite wrote:

"That analogy is completely inaccurate. Kneeling to run out the clock is a tactic to win a won game without risk, not an admission of defeat like resigning.

BigLew wrote:

it is Chess, not a basketball game! Sometimes in chess the fat lady has sung before the actual inevitable moves are played out.  Why waist time tryng to defend a hopelessly lost position when you can resign and play another. 

Now if you still have drawing chances keep fighting, but if you know you are in a forced mate in 3, then resign.  The sportsmanship of resigning and tipping your king in chess, is the equivelent of Kneeling on the ball to run out the clock in American football. "

 

I'm sorry you missed understanding my analogy. The point I made earlier when I compared it to basketball is that chess not like athletics. Yes kneeling on the ball is an action done by the victor rather than the defeted. But the sportsmanship is the same as a resignation in chess. In when a team kneels on the ball it says that even though there is time on the clock we are not going to try and score more points and risk injury to our team or yours. The victor in chess doesn't have an option to do something like that to secure the win early, but the looser can show the same kind of sportsmanship by resigning. Of course I understand that one action (Football) is by the victor, and the other (chess) is by the defeated. I was only comparing the level sportsmanship not the results.

However, there have been instances when a football a team was down by three scores or more and on offense, has not tried to run another play in the waning seconds. And a situation like that would be a better comparison to a chess resignation.

 

In other board games that involve points such as Scrabble® resigning in a tournament game could be considered poor sportsmanship, because it denies the victor of a full game's point total. As total points could be used as a tie breaking system for final standings. But in chess resigning is good gamesmanship if the result is inevitable. However a resignation b/c of frustration over a small pawn blunder maybe concidered rude.

I don't see it as being a sore loser; It's admitting defeat. However, it is just dickish to resign every game in which you don't gain an immediate advantage. I guess it really just depends on the dynamic between the players.  

To go back to the OP, and also to ammend my previous comments:

Isn't the honorable thing to finish your fight that you started?

No. Not necessarily. Acknowledging defeat is not dishonorable.

However, I personally have no problem with those who choose to play on until the end. Every player has the right to play on until checkmate or until their clock runs out. One must accept this at the beginning of every game, and I do.

Do I disrespect a player who resigns in a dead lost position? No. I have been there. Perhaps I have superior knowledge ... I remember having less. Perhaps he made a mistake ... I have made my share of them.

I respect an opponent who knows when to resign. I will accept a rematch, if he/she desires one. I know I may not be so lucky next time, but deference, if not respect, deserves the opportunity.

Bur Oak Well spoken Thank You.Enough said

Since I'm rated rather low on here I will try to finish it out because people my level tend to drop pieces frequently so there's still a chance.

It is not clear how the Steinitz - Van Bardeleden ended.  It is clear that Van Bardeleden was upset with the actions of the spectaters at Hastings and filed a formal protest.  According to some accounts, he gave Steintitz a note indicating that he was protesting the spectators and not Steinitz.  

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/steinitzvonbardeleben.html