user16626: Recently I played a blitz game (5m+5s) with an opponent with rating 1500+. I had a clearly losing endgame (K vs KQ). My opponent was not under any time pressure but he made a blunder and the game ended as a stalemate. 
I know this does not happen every day; it is extremely rare that I can draw a clearly losing game, but it may happen say once out of 100 games. If I resign whenever I feel hopeless, my record for these games will be 100 losses; on the other hand, if I keep playing, it could be 1 draw and 99 losses. So my overall record will be slightly better if I never resign; instead, I keep playing until I am checkmated or rarely, the game ends as a draw.
So continuing to play in a clearly losing game seems a reasonable strategy. But it is considered as bad etiquette not to resign when the game is clearly hopeless?

user17626: It's totally fine, especially if it's blitz. It's a question of whether you have chances to win or not. If you have close to zero chance to win or draw, then there is no point of playing further and yes your continuing to play will be considered malicious and a waste of time.
An extreme example, you're playing Magnus Carlsen, and you're a Queen down. Now take the same situation, and you're playing a player only 100 rating points higher and you're a Queen down. I would continue playing and it's not bad etiquette. Especially if both of your ratings are low enough that he won't see that knight fork coming that he loses the Queen to. Now if you're 2200 and they're 2300, it's unlikely this will happen. And whether it's bad etiquette or not may depend on the position (and of course how much time is left). Some positions have enough nuances to continue playing, or the position provides a clear win for a player with those ratings and it's a waste of time to continue. Of course if you're a Queen down against Carlsen and he's got only a second on the clock, and you have an hour, then heck yeah continue playing.
For a blitz game, if your opponent is low on time, you have a good chance of winning, so pursuing the play is not bad etiquette. Since winning by time is a valid way to win. Now if your opponent had outplayed you in every way, they may be irked that you won the game. Things happen. Even Kasparov got mad every once in a while.

user2698: The ability to remain sharp even in unfavorable situations is a useful skill, and it is perfectly acceptable to use tournaments to hone one's skills.  Even if one's position is such that one is almost certain to eventually lose against any reasonable opponent, there is nothing wrong with making an opponent earn his victory if one is in fact endeavoring to play as well as possible while making moves at a reasonable pace.
What would be poor sportsmanship would be for someone with an hour left on his clock to insist upon playing on in an obvious forced mate-in-three position, while taking twenty minutes to make each of the remaining three forced moves.
I think a fair criterion would be whether one either has a realistic chance of winning, or honestly feels that one is receiving some benefit from continued play.  If one can't honestly say that they're continuing for any reason other than to annoy their opponent, then continuing play in such circumstance would be poor sportsmanship, but that would be a matter for the player's own honest judgment.

user23843: I would say it depends on the circumstances, mostly the time. If it's blitz and your opponent is low on time, sure, go for it.
In a match with increment or if your opponent has more than enough time, I would consider it bad etiquette since by playing on, you are basically saying "I don't think, you are good enough to win this". This also depends on the level you are playing, for higher ranks, this already applies if you are down by a knight in midgame for example.
The second point is about wasting time. If a match is decided and you keep on playing, you waste both your and your opponent's time by prolonging a match that has already been decided and many players consider it boring to play a match that has already been decided.

user19347: No one plays optimally, so it is perfectly fine to continue playing in hope that your opponent will not play perfectly.
In any pure strategy game like chess, there is only a single possible outcome for perfect play.  (For chess it's probably a stalemate, although I don't believe we know for certain).
Chess is only interesting as a game because it is too complex for anybody to play perfectly.  As such, assuming that your opponent will play perfectly is clearly an unreasonable assumption. And if their skills are lacking in some way, then it's entirely possible that they lack the skills to beat you in this particular game. Just because a player has the skill to reach a dominant board position does not necessarily mean they have the skills to capitalize on their advantage. 

user17448: 
It's not bad etiquette, and further, many people think(and I partially join them) that resigning and draw agreements in chess should be forbidden.
Reasoning - it's necessary to expand chess popularity as sports and to make it possible for non-chess-players to follow competitions and games. It happens so often - two GMs playing - one resigns and half of spectators don't have even close clue of why
Also compare to other sports - imagine in tennis - someone resigns
when result is 0:4 in first set or after first lost set or players
agree to a draw after 1:1 in score in sets... - no one would follow
such weird sports. Imagine similar in hockey, football, soccer,
basketball, volleyball. Imagine how many people would follow boxing
if two fighters would exchange one hit and then agree to a draw in a
beginning of first round ...
So if we want chess to become popular and to make it possible to get TV time for it, make it Olympic sports, etc - we must behave like a sports - fight till end of game; if you watch NHL - so often team loosing 0:5 or more - keep fighting till end and score goal late in game when result is clear - that's why the game is so popular and can be watched as entertainment by people who don't really understand it.
Chess is too weird as a sport currently and something should be done
about that.
and practically, specially in blitz there are great chances to get positive score in lost position - so playing on is completely normal.


user8300: As a general rule, if something is not done out of malice then it's not bad etiquette in my book (especially if it's allowed in the rules). So if all you do is play on in a lost position, then I don't see how anyone could complain; for instance, should a novice not be allowed to play on until checkmate? That would be absurd, no matter who said novice were facing!
The only unsportsmanlike behaviour I've witnessed in this regard was a player in an OTB tournament just sitting and waiting for his clock to run out when the position became hopeless, since his intent was obviously to spite his opponent and waste their time. If he had been making moves I wouldn't even have reacted, but since he was just doing it to annoy his opponent it was a clear act of malice and therefore bad etiquette.

16626: <p>Recently I played a blitz game (5m+5s) with an opponent with rating 1500+. I had a clearly losing endgame (K vs KQ). My opponent was not under any time pressure but he made a blunder and the game ended as a stalemate. </p>

<p>I know this does not happen every day; it is extremely rare that I can draw a clearly losing game, but it may happen say once out of 100 games. If I resign whenever I feel hopeless, my record for these games will be 100 losses; on the other hand, if I keep playing, it could be 1 draw and 99 losses. So my overall record will be slightly better if I never resign; instead, I keep playing until I am checkmated or rarely, the game ends as a draw.</p>

<p>So continuing to play in a clearly losing game seems a reasonable strategy. But it is considered as bad etiquette not to resign when the game is clearly hopeless?</p>
 17626: <p>It's totally fine, especially if it's blitz. It's a question of whether you have chances to win or not. If you have close to zero chance to win or draw, then there is no point of playing further and yes your continuing to play will be considered malicious and a waste of time.</p>

<p>An extreme example, you're playing Magnus Carlsen, and you're a Queen down. Now take the same situation, and you're playing a player only 100 rating points higher and you're a Queen down. I would continue playing and it's not bad etiquette. Especially if both of your ratings are low enough that he won't see that knight fork coming that he loses the Queen to. Now if you're 2200 and they're 2300, it's unlikely this will happen. And whether it's bad etiquette or not may depend on the position (and of course how much time is left). Some positions have enough nuances to continue playing, or the position provides a clear win for a player with those ratings and it's a waste of time to continue. Of course if you're a Queen down against Carlsen and he's got only a second on the clock, and you have an hour, then heck yeah continue playing.</p>

<p>For a blitz game, if your opponent is low on time, you have a good chance of winning, so pursuing the play is not bad etiquette. Since winning by time is a valid way to win. Now if your opponent had outplayed you in every way, they may be irked that you won the game. Things happen. Even Kasparov got mad every once in a while.</p>
 2698: <p>The ability to remain sharp even in unfavorable situations is a useful skill, and it is perfectly acceptable to use tournaments to hone one's skills.  Even if one's position is such that one is almost certain to eventually lose against any reasonable opponent, there is nothing wrong with making an opponent earn his victory <em>if one is in fact endeavoring to play as well as possible while making moves at a reasonable pace</em>.</p>

<p>What would be poor sportsmanship would be for someone with an hour left on his clock to insist upon playing on in an obvious forced mate-in-three position, while taking twenty minutes to make each of the remaining three forced moves.</p>

<p>I think a fair criterion would be whether one <em>either</em> has a realistic chance of winning, or honestly feels that one is receiving some benefit from continued play.  If one can't honestly say that they're continuing for any reason other than to annoy their opponent, then continuing play in such circumstance would be poor sportsmanship, but that would be a matter for the player's own honest judgment.</p>
 23843: <p>I would say it depends on the circumstances, mostly the time. If it's blitz and your opponent is low on time, sure, go for it.</p>

<p>In a match with increment or if your opponent has more than enough time, I would consider it bad etiquette since by playing on, you are basically saying "I don't think, you are good enough to win this". This also depends on the level you are playing, for higher ranks, this already applies if you are down by a knight in midgame for example.</p>

<p>The second point is about wasting time. If a match is decided and you keep on playing, you waste both your and your opponent's time by prolonging a match that has already been decided and many players consider it boring to play a match that has already been decided.</p>
 19347: <h2>No one plays optimally, so it is perfectly fine to continue playing in hope that your opponent will not play perfectly.</h2>

<p>In any pure strategy game like chess, there is only a single possible outcome for perfect play.  (For chess it's <em>probably</em> a stalemate, although I don't believe we know for certain).</p>

<p>Chess is only interesting as a game because it is too complex for anybody to play perfectly.  As such, assuming that your opponent will play perfectly is clearly an unreasonable assumption. And if their skills are lacking in some way, then it's entirely possible that they lack the skills to beat you in this particular game. Just because a player has the skill to reach a dominant board position does not necessarily mean they have the skills to capitalize on their advantage. </p>
 17448: <ul>
<li>It's not bad etiquette, and <em>further</em>, many people think(and I partially join them) that resigning and draw agreements in chess should be forbidden.</li>
<li>Reasoning - it's necessary to expand chess popularity as sports and to make it possible for non-chess-players to follow competitions and games. It happens so often - two GMs playing - one resigns and half of spectators don't have even close clue of why</li>
<li>Also compare to other sports - imagine in tennis - someone resigns
when result is 0:4 in first set or after first lost set or players
agree to a draw after 1:1 in score in sets... - no one would follow
such weird sports. Imagine similar in hockey, football, soccer,
basketball, volleyball. Imagine how many people would follow boxing
if two fighters would exchange one hit and then agree to a draw in a
beginning of first round ...</li>
<li>So if we want chess to become popular and to make it possible to get TV time for it, make it Olympic sports, etc - we must behave like a sports - fight till end of game; if you watch NHL - so often team loosing 0:5 or more - keep fighting till end and score goal late in game when result is clear - that's why the game is so popular and can be watched as entertainment by people who don't really understand it.</li>
<li>Chess is too weird as a sport currently and something should be done
about that.</li>
<li>and practically, specially in blitz there are great chances to get positive score in lost position - so playing on is completely normal.</li>
</ul>
 8300: <p>As a general rule, if something is not done out of malice then it's not bad etiquette in my book (especially if it's allowed in the rules). So if all you do is play on in a lost position, then I don't see how anyone could complain; for instance, should a novice not be allowed to play on until checkmate? That would be absurd, no matter who said novice were facing!</p>

<p>The only unsportsmanlike behaviour I've witnessed in this regard was a player in an OTB tournament just sitting and waiting for his clock to run out when the position became hopeless, since his intent was obviously to spite his opponent and waste their time. If he had been making moves I wouldn't even have reacted, but since he was just doing it to annoy his opponent it was a clear act of malice and therefore bad etiquette.</p>
