Opinion: getting annoyed because your opponent refuses to resign is a sign of arrogance

My take is, I don't care about the circumstances. If the rules say you don't have to, then you don't. Etiquette is arbitrary. I've seen enough online content to know that opinion is just as inconsistent on the master level as it is on mine. I've seen some masters say "Never resign!". I've seen other masters in stream go "Just resign!" as they watched a fellow master's live game, and they said it with a superior smile on their face.

What do you guys think?

I'll resign when i feel i've nothing more to learn from a losing position, if my opponent does not mind playing through. I've been on the winning side wondering why my opponent refuses to resign, but rather than being annoyed, i realize it's my responsibility to play to mate. Most of us aren't world class masters that can see the inevitable 20 or 30 moves ahead to know the final outcome.

I disagree that etiquette is arbitrary—it deserves a little more credit than that. However, in this scenario there isn't specific etiquette in my experience, except what aligns with respecting your opponent.

Here's where I agree very much with @HerkyHawkeye. At 1600 level, many White players cannot hold a +2 position against good play. And if you can't hold it, it's kind of ridiculous to expect resignation. The premise for resigning is "I'm going to lose barring a truly-uncharacteristic blunder." The disadvantaged player has the right to challenge that premise with his play.

I've won completely-lost positions through methodical play...and lost completely-won positions. We've all been there. So I have a hard time blaming anyone for playing it out. I get annoyed, rather, when someone refuses to let you play mate-in-1 or -2, especially a beautiful one. You're not saving anyone's time there, you're just being petty.

@pierogiman said in #3:
> So I have a hard time blaming anyone for playing it out. I get annoyed, rather, when someone refuses to let you play mate-in-1 or -2, especially a beautiful one. You're not saving anyone's time there, you're just being petty.
Not necesarily. IMHO sometimes the reason is that your opponent didn't see it coming until that moment and is afraid that if they let you play it to the end, it will look as if they still didn't see it.

@pawngrid said in #1:
>
> What do you guys think?

I think that chess is played by two, that everyone has the right to play as they prefer, and no one can expect the other to play as they want, based on their own etiquette, since what chess etiquettes ( there are several ) prescribe is not shared by everyone.
The only shared rules, that everyone must adhere to, are the Game Rules.
If the opponent doesn't want to resign, what's the problem ? Give him checkmate and that's it.

Well, I don't know what people will make about this. My opponent criticised me in the chat for failing to resign when several points down materially (can't remember, 14?). While I recognise that my position was terrible, there was one thing in my favour: my queen was still on the board and able to get inside my opponent's defence. My impression was that the opponent was quick to take offence, as players of all ranks occasionally achieve a win or a draw with a break-away queen.

I once won a game with a rook and a king against my opponent's queen, two bishops and one or two pawns because he allowed me to trap his king on the backrow whilst he was shepherding pawns down the board for no reason.

Silliness happens.

Not resigning in a completely lost position is a waste of your time, your opponent's time and ultimately just a sign of bad manners and a lack of basic sportsmanship.

but it does depend on whether or not it is completely lost. There are various signs of being a good sportsman; giving up is not one of them.

@Katoh1 said in #8:
> Not resigning in a completely lost position is a waste of your time, your opponent's time and ultimately just a sign of bad manners and a lack of basic sportsmanship.

In Japan, it is considered a sign of bad manners to blow your nose in public. In many other places, no, no one pay attention to it.
Like all etiquettes, they are prescriptions that are not shared by everyone. Including the etiquette of resigning in a lost position, about which there is no universal agreement, far from it. Etiquettes vary with place, community, time.
In the mid-nineteenth century, it was considered impolite to refuse a gambit. Can you imagine the scene? 1.e4, e5. 2.f4, d5. "Rude! Lack of sportsmanship!" ...

Personally, I always resign because I lose interest when I know that only a glaring mistake by the opponent could save me; But if one wants to continue to the end, I repeat, what is the problem ? The extra one-two minutes that he makes you waste ? Seriously ? If his position is so desperate, how long does it take you to checkmate him ?
Finish him and show that it was useless to continue. Because if, on the other hand, at the last minute he manages to get a stalmate or you make a blunder in turn ( and it happens not infrequently ), then he was right and you didn’t deserve to win...

Sportsmanship is acknowledging defeat when it has been definitively accomplished. For example, complimenting your opponent, when the game is over.
It is a lack of sportsmanship to abandon the game without resigning, because it means not accepting defeat.
Not resigning in a lost position doesn’t means anything in itself. If one prefers to play until he gets checkmated, it’s his business.