In one of my tournaments from 10-12 years ago, a NY expert known for never resigning was doing that to a Maryland master who got annoyed and decided to torture the New Yorker and test himself at the same time. While getting rid of other pieces and under-promoting, he mated him with 5 knights.
Mike
At one high school tournament a player was creating multiple knights for the same reason. The opposing coach came to me and asked me to penalize the promoting player for unduly drawing out the agony of the totally busted player. My response was that the agony could be ended immediately by simply resigning, an option totally in the busted player’s control, and that thus I saw no reason to penalize the promoting player. Later at the state tournament (I wasn’t there) the promoting player was warned for doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons.
Warned under what rule? Did you hear?
Unsportsmanlike conduct. It was not USChess rated.
Was the non-resigning player also warned?
It wasn’t rated, what stopped the TD from spinning the wheel on potential offenses.
He should have made it 6 knights, and imposed upon himself the additional requirement that 4 of them must be in the 4 corner squares at some point, after which none of the 4 could be moved, though some or all of them could be captured.
That should get an audience.
Bill Smythe
You would have to be careful that you don’t run afoul of the 50 move rule, thus allowing the non-resigning player to escape with a draw, which would only encourage him, and quite possibly others, to refuse to resign future games. We don’t want to be going down that road.
Maybe not, but it would sure be fun to watch!
It would be doubly interesting if it turns out that the only way not to run afoul of the 50-move rule would be to force the opponent to capture one of the corner knights at about move 48, thus starting the 50-move count over from scratch.
Bill Smythe
Smarter to hold one pawn back for tempo moves to restart the 50 move count.
Here’s one for jwiewel:
White to move and:
All four of the knights must reach their corners before any of them are captured. Once all four have reached their corners, none of these four may be moved, but they may be captured.
Bill Smythe
Be careful, someday a player is going to read this and in one of your tournaments is going to do just as above to try to set a move record. With increment time, they will add an hour and a half or two to the round as they casually head toward the move 200 mark and beyond. Even if you do adjourn the game, they will still have to play it off before the last round. If it is a last round game, they will help to hold the prize ceremony back and keep you on site into the wee hours of the night.
There is if you want to see punishment doled out to the person whose ego is so big that they refuse to resign! 
:mrgreen:
It doesn’t bother me in the least if an opponent wants to play the game out to mate. It is a player’s prerogative to play as long as he or she wishes. Nothing in the rules compels anyone to resign at any time. Clearly some people think it is rude not to resign a hopelessly lost position, but trying to “punish” someone for this is ruder still. The person with the inflated ego is the person who gets angry at an opponent who chooses to exercise his or her right to continue playing.
No, but there are rules that compel a player to keep playing or resign. This is especially important in correspondence chess where a player is much more likely to have serious issues if his opponent plays “dead man’s defense”. Losing an hour isn’t so bad. Losing a year is much worse.
Alex Relyea
My comment above was in mirth; Jeff has already made the point, and I agree - that someone has the right to play something out. It is no “ruder” to “punish” them for playing it out than it is for them to choose to play it out. Just as the player is not compelled to resign, the opponent is not compelled to find the shortest, most efficient mate, and if they mindlessly want to queen 5 pawns that’s no more an affront than shuffling one’s King back and fourth while the five pawns are queened.
And yes, there is something to say about manners - that’s part of why “resignation” exists.
I have no problem with a player who won’t resign a hopeless position. My problem is with the player who won’t resign and won’t move.
If you don’t want to resign a hopeless position, at least have the courtesy to move quickly.
I disagree that it’s ruder still. At worst, it’s only about as rude, and most likely, it’s a little less rude.
I agree, however, with some other posters who claim that “punishing” the non-resigner is likely to be ineffective.
Bill Smythe
Some players will resign earlier to some opponents if they perceive a game is lost, but will stubbornly hold out and drag a game on against other players who have been rude to them or refused to resign their own inferior positions in the past. There is another reason why some players hold on. If your opponent has a history of cracking in endgames, giving away advantages, or even losing won endings, then the right psychological strategy is to play on to make him finish the game. I have seen enough grossly lost positions fumbled by the superior side who gets careless or cocky. Sloppy play can result in a miracle stalemate or allowance of a fortress position. When a player is “winning”, his brain starts the party too early and causes him to relax and lose his alertness. I tell my students that they have not won a game until the result is marked up and the pieces put away. Then they can party. Prior to that they should be respectful of the opponent and play to win as efficiently and cleanly as possible. When players see you never mess up a “won” position, they resign earlier.
I agree with the contributors to this thread who noted that it is a player’s “right” to play the game out to the end. To some degree, I am a bitter-ender myself, and many, many of my opponents have been that way. It doesn’t normally bother me; in fact, I like playing out the winning side of endgames even better than I like playing out the losing side.
But let me suggest another angle of looking at this, which I haven’t seen yet in this thread. In any sport, one of the highest crimes against sportsmanship is to not try your hardest. You can get in real trouble for that, in fact. That’s one reason why most sports don’t have a “resign” option. You can’t resign a baseball game or a tennis game, at least not if it’s a serious game.
Chess is almost unique in this. In chess you’re allowed to resign. But chess still has sportsmanship, which means you’re not supposed to resign if there’s any hope left. So, hanging on to the bitter end is not just a “right”, it’s an “obligation”.
Of course, those are fine words, but I resigned in a winning position a few years ago against Alex Heimann. Sigh.
Bruce
A story from about 30 -years ago…
An expert friend of mine blundered in the opening in the final round of a class tournament. As a result he had to defend a tortuous position, hour, after hour. He did so for over five hours, as his opponent slowly let his win become questionable. And then – his opponent made an aggressive move which was an error and gave an immediate draw. My friend analyzed the position for awhile, and seeing no way to meet his opponent’s threat - resigned. It was perhaps the worst loss of his life, and a very painful one indeed when we showed him the direct draw. It happens.
But I think the real point is - much of this argument is a bit crazy. I think its polite to resign a lost position, but it would be rare that I would be offended if an opponent did not (assuming that they were still moving/playing.) I find it odd that in bullet games people get upset when someone doesn’t resign when there are only seconds left on the clock. IT’S BULLET, and time is a known part of the game; if one doesn’t want time to be an element of the game - then don’t play bullet.
But if someone plays out a lost position - they have no material left and I have a horde, and 30 seconds – then don’t get angry if I decide to “cat and mouse” the other person a little. They made the choice to play on, and if they don’t like what is happening, they can choose to end it. I don’t view it as punishment, but I do view it as “would you rather play on down 4 queens for 30 seconds - or start another game?” It’s their choice, and I don’t get upset one way or the other. Of course, it takes the cake when their down significant material, lose on time, and then refer to their opponent as a “time player.” Reality is a wonderful thing - some players need to try it more often!