Isn't rude to prolong a game when checkmate is inevitable?

 In my otb experience I would say 90% or more of the players that are A class or better consider it rude to continue in an " obviously hopeless position ".

Some of these things are just common sense.

I will give an example from one of my own tournament games. I was playing a rapid event ( G/20 ) in Portugal and had black against GM A Strikovic , we were playing a french when in the middlegame I simply hung my queen for a knight... a blunder !  I immediately resigned...... who here wouldnt ?!  I can gurantee you if I had played until checkmate ( yes it is my right if I wish ) he would have not thought kindly of me and neither would most of the players present.

As far as I know there is no written rule/law that one cannot fart loudly while at the dinner table in a nice restaurant either but I am betting MOST people would consider it very rude indeed.

You let yourself blunder, then don't give your opponent the chance to?

I agree with quixote88pianist; the point of the game is checkmate so I would expect a player to play until they have accomplished this goal.

I think in my case, my opponent was definitely making a point with his/her style of play. I, on the other hand, didn't even catch on to what my opponent was doing until much later. I was unaware of all these unwritten customs. In the future, I think I will recognize when someone is prolonging a game unneccessarily and resign before I'm reduced to making hopeless moves but, if I feel I have even the slightest chance at a draw I will fight on.

 From this I think its a safe bet that you havent played many GMs in chess . Probably none in tournament conditions.

Of course, against a GM, one would have no chance.  But if I'm not mistaken this thread is referring to a game played between beginners, which is a different matter entirely.

As any GM will tell you, "Don't resign until the fat guy screams."

 I agree that the level of the players involved and the conditions of the game matter. Also, the time remaining to both players plays a big part as well, especially in otb games.

So considering that the OP has said she thought there was a chance of her opponent blundering into a stalemate, you would agree that in this case it's not rude to carry on?

In this particular case I personally would cut her some slack, no I dont think she was being rude but obviously her opponent thought she was and thats why he drug the game out and promoted pawns when it wasnt necessary to win...

It has nothing to do with taste, opinion or style.  The only players who play with a lone king vs tons of material (and aren't meaning to be a spiteful arse) are beginners period.

100% of the time when an experienced player plays on when down lots of material with no compensation (eg rating, time on the clock etc) they are doing it to be spiteful and rude.  100% of the time when an experienced player does this, other experienced players consider their actions rude.

I played my cousin a week ago who is a beginner, never been to a tournament, never been to a club, never played online, etc.  He was down a ton and didn't resign and it didn't bother me because if it's a beginner doing it I understand.  But don't think it has anything to do with taste or style, the only thing it has to do with is experience (20 year veteran-beginners non-withstanding).

To the OP you shouldn't feel bad, you can play on and learn.  If it was against me anyway, there'd be no hard feelings.  Although with only a king left there's really nothing left to learn, by resigning and starting a new game you'll renew your learning chances.  Even if your opponent slips up and stalemate's you, that's nothing you can learn from, your lessons occurred 20-30-40 moves before that.

Actually, I've played a few people who play until mate in all of their games, aren't beginners and definitely don't do it out of spite. One of these was around FIDE 1800. I'm not sure why they do it if they know they're going to lose, and I'm not arguing that it makes their actions not rude, just that it's not their intention to be rude...

 Well of course not. You could tell that from my rating quite easily also. Against a GM, a blunder in a simple position is amazingly unlikely. So unlikely, that almost all of the time, a the opponent cannot be bothered with carrying on the game, but GMs are not pure robots, and can make mistakes sometimes. It makes much more sense to carry on - Nobody ever won a game by resigning.

But even GMs commit monstrous blunders. Kramnik once allowed a mate in one when not in time pressure. The example of flatulating at the dinner table isn't really relevant here (albeit quite amusing). One thing I have learned in my recent years of chess study, NM Reb, is that being down a Queen for a Knight is not that large of a deficit, sometimes! I have at times been shocked at how effectively a powerful Knight can make a Queen impotent and lame. I cannot say you were wrong to resign in the example game you cited, because I don't know the position or the circumstances; but I would not resign in that situation unless my opponent's advantage was completely secured... I would at least play on a few more moves to see what trouble I could stir up, and then probably surrender.

I will also say that it is definitely not right to ALWAYS play until checkmate; sometimes it's silly. But many years ago, when a sacrifice was offered, it was considered cowardice to decline it, even if it spelled disaster for the sacrificer's opponent. Since then, convention has changed, those sacrifices are declined, and the results of the games are surely different that might have otherwise been expected. The philosophy is analogous, I think: Just because a loss APPEARS inevitable, are we obliged to accept it, when deep in our hearts, we think we might have a chance at a different result? Again, I will ignore the attitudes of overly-sensitive people (especially those who aren't playing the game!). If I am trying for a draw (or a win), it is none of their business.

So, the losing player is not rude by not resigning, because he/she wants to learn?

What if the winning player also wants to learn, and sacrifices or underpromotes to lone bishop and knight, for example?

I'm afraid if somebody plays on in a lost position against me, I feel I have the right to look for pretty or bizarre (or pretty bizarre) mates, just as he has the right to not resign.

BTW, I would never ask, suggest or hint that my opponent resigns, he can do whatever he likes. But so can I.

Ultimately, none of us likes losing when we should have won, or being made to do work that could be unecessary. I got quite a bit annoyed recently when I lost on time on live chess to someone higher rated who was losing by quite a bit.

Because of this we've ended up saying that it's something they did wrong rather than something we did wrong (bad time management) or our taste in chess (like the middlegame, don't enjoy the endgame). What better way to make it their fault than to call their character into question? We also can say that they aren't mature as chess players yet. Hang on, they're the people that just beat us? Well we'll ignore that...

GMs resigning is vaguely reasonable. If they see a win for the opponent 20 moves down the line, then their opponent will likely see it too, so why not resign and spend that time having a drink at the bar instead of over a long since decided chessboard?

Calling it manners is wrong and dangerous though. We bring etiquette codes into the game and instead of becoming reasonable, it becomes an illogical law that is applied everywhere and punished by the fact that everyone thinks you're an asshole. But chess is competetive, and almost every form of chess is harmed by these laws. Everyone can blunder at any time, and by making resignation seem morally superior to playing on, you divert this fact in favour of keeping everyone happy. Chess competitions wouldn't be won by the most talented, they'd be won by the people who were most willing to be labelled unpleasant. That is madness.

In football. Keeping the ball and wasting time when you're winning is not rude. Fighting until the bitter end when you're a way behind is not rude.

It is competition, and the only way to ensure good future chess players is to keep it.

More stupid and pathetic than rude I think

"A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." People constantly focus on anecdotes when they should be looking at statistics. You've gotten yourself too enamoured with the once-in-a-blue-moon cases of GMs blundering and completely overlooked literally thousands of games where they don't. (Actually it's more like tens or hundreds of thousands but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it.) The chance of a GM blundering in situations with such material disparity is minute, and if you were playing a GM it'd really be better to save both you and your opponent's time and just resign.

Well said dood in the mood

 But in football resigning is NOT an option. However, when one side is blowing out the other side dont they pull their "starters" and let second stringers get some experience ?  I see this in every game that could be considered a " blowout" .

Tyzebug, honestly, I have to agree with you. I admit that GMs committing such blunders is so extremely rare that I would resign in plenty of cases myself... who am I kidding? :) My only point is, it's my choice, so if I want to play until mate, nobody else has the right to object. But would my time be better spent, say, talking about the game afterwards? Very likely.