should you ever resign?

i think once one gets to the master/grandmaster level, one can safely assume that their opponent will be able to checkmate you without falling for a stalemate. however, i think anyone below 2000 or so should play it out - i've had matches against people rated 300 higher than me and they've fallen for the most transparent stalemates, and i've had people rated = or less than me and i've nabbed their rook and their bishop, but somewhere along the line i get careless and end up being checkmated. basically my point is that until you know for certain that your opponent has the skill to keep their advantage, you should never resign

Honestly, it's just my personal preference, but I gain more satisfaction of playing through a mate in 4 or 5 that I worked hard for rather than just seeing my opponent resign. If it's a longer drawn out game I'm ok with resigning, but it depends on the person's style. Maybe a little communication can go a long way in a chat box.

As for the fast paced timed games, I hate it when someone has just a king left and moves it around to cause me to lose because of time...but if that player took an extra minute to think through the moves I could be losing. A fine balance...

I have grown used to people not resigning hopeless positions here on chess.com but this one is more than ridiculous/insulting : http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=13383856

Wildcard conditional moves (if they are ever implemented) will sort out all of these King vs Army endgames.

yes; if you want to.  some  people never ever resign, which I understand but don't agree with.  I resign when I feel the game is hopeless (no chance of stalemate, etc).  I don't believe in dragging out a game that is hopelessly lost but I respect the opposite opinion on this; it's all up to the individual.  And to repeat what I've said in other posts, a person should never, ever, ever tell another person to resign; it's not his/her call. 

The real problem, I believe, is that none of the top programs , like Rybka, tell people when they should resign !

It's extremely irritating when it's obvious they have about a 0.2% chance of winning. Just resign! We could play another game, if you don't resign in an overwhelming position, I won't want to play you again.

Reb, it's surprising that your opponent won't resign that position. I can understand rank beginners playing it out, but someone rated 2600+? They can only be desperately guarding their rating points, which really is pathetic on an online chess site.

yerah depends on the likelyhood of your opponent making a mistake. If there is an obvious checkmate 3 moves away that you can't get out of and your oppentent is good enough to be working towards then i would resign ( maybe not in live chess cos it wouldn't take that long)

When you resign you lose . Enough said ?

Simple answer-YES resign when the position is lost

Your response is to resign when a position is lost ? Than quit right after the opening.

Why is the position lost after the opening? That really is a stupid statement that shows no understanding of chess.

If I won a Queen you should resign, it depends upon each persons level and the ability to understand when a position is lost. I resigned against Kasparov even though I was not down material because I was going to lose a lot of material or get mated--the is the correct thing to do as it shows respect both for  opponents play and your own

Watch your spelling.

aansel, if you played Kasparov and you quit the way you said you did, then you short changed yourself.

Absolutely not--the position was lost and in a few moves he would have won easily as he showed me. The game is in commercial databases. It is personal as the timing of resignation but it definitely shows signs of respect for your opponent.

I am not playing a game where I am up two Queens on my opponent.I will make him suffer--there is no point in his continuing to play.

I see it often repeated that resigning a seemingly lost game is a sign of respect for the winning player. But not once has it been suggested that patiently playing on a game that you feel is 'already in-the-bag' without complaint or expectation of a resignation could be viewed as showing respect for the losing player. Often times amateurs, such as myself see such an attitude as incredible arrogance. Sure, perhaps the game is lost. And quite likely the winning player is much better than myself, but does that make it ok to act as if winning is his natural birthright after getting up on me by a few points?

Your time is valuable and I understand that if you're a stronger player and the game is in your favor that it's natural to grow bored with it and wish to go on to other more challenging opponents but please stop for a moment and give the losing player your respect as well. Perhaps the weaker player is attempting to learn something about chess from the game...take a moment for yourself and try to learn something about being a decent person from the same game.

DL899 I don't think that anyone is saying resign when the position is "lost"-Lost is a very subjective term. What I consider an OK position a stronger player may consider lost. Also as long as there is some learning going on I think playing on is fine and actually recommended. There should be respect from and for both player on the board.

However at some point if everything is hopeless (and time is not an issue) playing on so you can see how a 1800 or 2200 or stronger can master with a Queen versus a lone King--that, in my opinion, crosses the level of respect that the winner deserves.

Believe it or not in many blitz games (which are for fun but still rated)I will resign if I am lost even if mu opponent has little time left--that is how I play. I can not speak for others.

I have no problems with resigning especially when I did not play well. I'm going to lose, so why prolong the inevitable? I remember playing a game of blitz chess on Yahoo and I had my opponent beat soundly. I suggested to him to resign, and he wouldn't do it. What transpired afterwards was 15 minutes of ridiculous manuevers that resulted in him using profanity and being obnoxious. Finally, after I wouldn't let up, he resigned. That was the last time I decided to play chess on Yahoo.

You would have shown and earned more respect of Kasparov if you had chosen to compete rather than quit. You played Kasparov and you remember the game you played against him , The game that you quit ,because you were scared of what you thought might happen .You say you had your chance against the World Champ but instead of giving your best with material on the board to work with you quit.

There is a difference between OTB, where fighting on means a few more minutes and slow games where there is a difference of days or weeks and far less chance of a careless blunder.  Play on if you feel you can learn from the practice.