Is it rude / insulting not to resign?

[Peter Lalic]

unable to deliver mate in the time he had left.

Yes, this is one of the elements that could create circumstances in which it is a good idea to play on. Of course, in slowplay, as well as rapidplay, time can decide things - regardless of material. My original sample case involved 15 minutes each.

[Alex Holowczak]

But surely you would not continue a rook down against a 170?

Yes, I probably would.

Particularly in a Birmingham League game, and I'm at home, and adjournment time is fast approaching.

[IM Jack Rudd]

But surely you would not continue a rook down against a 170?

Yes, I probably would.

Particularly in a Birmingham League game, and I'm at home, and adjournment time is fast approaching.

That wouldn't work in the Bristol League. Even if you've chosen the 36/90 +24/60 forever time control, the player with the extra rook would then request adjudication at session end. If you want to carry on, it's you who has to travel.

[Arshad Ali]

I've found it pays dividends to play on in lost positions against lower-rated opponents. One thing I notice time and again is how often lower-rated players lose their composure in won positions (particularly against higher-rated opponents). Their hand starts to tremble, their heart rate starts galloping, their blood pressure goes stratospheric -- all at the prospect of imminent defeat of a stronger opponent. And that's where the mistakes start coming in -- they become careless, stop calculating. Or they go to the other extreme and become overly fearful and cautious. In both cases there are chances for me to mix things up, engage in speculative sacrifices, aim for a swindle. And snatching draws -- or even wins -- from the jaws of such defeats is most gratifying.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Around 18 years ago at the Redcar congress Grandmaster Suba played on with a lone King against Rook and King. His opponent rated around 200 was unable to deliver mate in the time he had left

That is mind-blowing, tbh.

Any 150-ish player (possibly quite a bit lower than that, even) should be able to do it instantly, and blindfold.......

IMHO, of course

[Andrew Camp]

I should just resign on move 1 and safe us both the hastle.

[Peter Lalic]

I've found it pays dividends to play on in lost positions against lower-rated opponents.

You're absolutely right!
We've all done it at least once with, as Borat would say, "great success"!
Your descriptions are spot-on - the majority of people in those circumstances would, as you correctly say, just crack under the pressure. And with lots of pieces on the board, their "extra" rook (perhaps hanging) could just drop off.
The cases that are difficult to debate are those in which the losing player is lower-rated and time for both players is sufficient (maybe 5 minutes for rest of game).

[Peter Lalic]

That is mind-blowing, tbh.

I have to agree with Matt; this was my first impression.
Suba must have been pretty depressed to be outplayed to R+K v K by someone who then failed to checkmate with (presumably?!) no less than 30 seconds!

[Roger de Coverly]

I am graded 169, my opponent 163. He does not resign. Why? Using the logic applied to the GM games, we realized that he does not respect my abilities to win the game!

Time makes a difference of course. You don't resign in a non-increment game if a player is down to his last minute or two. Otherwise a suggested strategy for the player with the advantage is to make the loss as humiliating as possible. Take every move seriously but work with the idea of making "resigns" seem the least worst move. Zugswang approaches can work well.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

That is mind-blowing, tbh.

I have to agree with Matt; this was my first impression.
Suba must have been pretty depressed to be outplayed to R+K v K by someone who then failed to checkmate with (presumably?!) no less than 30 seconds!

Last season a member of my club rated ~140 was playing in a local league game against a ~130. It went down to a K+Q vs. K ending, he had 10 minutes left on his clock but couldn't work out the mate. Exasperated at watching this humiliation unfold before my eyes, I pulled the embarrassed member to one side (insert your own pun) and asked him to explain what 20 people had just seen. His response was ''I've never had to do it before, we've always had adjournments so people tend to resign to me before it gets that far''. - Fortunately for the good of chess, the East Glamorgan Chess League did away with adjournments that season and we haven't looked back. Although many of the old timers complain they don't have enough time to have their leisurely think with a pint in hand, it's at least teaching juniors and the rest of us how to play an endgame!!

[Alexander Hardwick]

Last season a member of my club rated ~140 was playing in a local league game against a ~130. It went down to a K+Q vs. K ending, he had 10 minutes left on his clock but couldn't work out the mate. Exasperated at watching this humiliation unfold before my eyes, I pulled the embarrassed member to one side (insert your own pun) and asked him to explain what 20 people had just seen. His response was ''I've never had to do it before, we've always had adjournments so people tend to resign to me before it gets that far''. - Fortunately for the good of chess, the East Glamorgan Chess League did away with adjournments that season and we haven't looked back. Although many of the old timers complain they don't have enough time to have their leisurely think with a pint in hand, it's at least teaching juniors and the rest of us how to play an endgame!!

But how many players would dare playing on that far with such a large disadvantage against a highly competent opponent? Especially with the risk of being lambasted - both in their clubs and on the EC Forum - for showing disrespect to their opponent. The benefit of hindsight tells us that it was a good idea for the losing player to play on in this case, despite the higher grade of his opponent, the ample time left for his opponent and the size of his material deficit. But, in cases such as these, there's no way to judge, in the real game, whether or not your opponent is secretly incompetent with the basic checkmate endings.

[Daniel Young]

This week I had to mate in an ending of K+6P vs. K with 15 minutes per player, in an ungraded inter-school friendly match. There is no ability gulf, we're both troubling the 100 mark and should know how lost this is.

Here's a question - did anyone ever teach you how to resign? I don't mean a 5-second rant after they stalemated you - a pre-planned talk dedicated exclusively to this. Anyone can go on about tactics and openings, but not when or why they should resign! You can't get much more pessimistic, and as the saying goes "you never win a game by resignation," so the competitive world of junior chess seemingly has no time for this. It takes longer than it should, but eventually most people pass beyond this phase, as I did, and learn to resign timefully. As Peter demonstrates, some do not.

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

Perhaps it depends on your outlook. If you'd be furious if your opponent doesn't resign in a certain position, would you play on if the tables were turned? I suspect it would be rude to some degree if you were hypocritical in that instance.

I guess out of all the things that you can come across whilst playing chess (oponent continuously belching at you, a junior sneezing non-stop at the pieces you are about to move, the guys who have just completed their game sitting next to you noisy analysing it whilst you're trying to figure out some intricate combination), playing on in a lost position does fit within the rules of chess, and I guess sometimes you just have to sigh and accept it.

[John Curtis]

My rule for resignation: Resign if you're sure that your opponent will beat you in the given position

Addendum to rule: Resign earlier if the bar's open

[PaulTalbot]

Playing on does not necessarily mean you don't resect your opponent. I once made a blunder and lost my queen to a knight on move 7, to a similarly rated opponent as myself (140ish). I thought about resigning there and then but decided to play on because I would only have to 'hang around' bored for the next 2 1/2 - 3 hours. I have a lot of respect for my opponent as a person (excluding the football team he supports) and as a chess player; my playing on had nothing to do with a lack of respect. 57 moves later I won the game.