Obligation to Resign

There is a player in my local chess club rated about 800. I am 1600, for reference. I often get won positions out of the opening, and just waste my time simplifying from there. Although that isn’t what bothers me. What I can’t stand is that he will NEVER resign. Not even in a King and Queen vs Lone King endgame. I really don’t respect this guy as a chess player and if I had it my way he wouldn’t be allowed to play in the club until he started to understand etiquette and just stopped wasting time.

What are your thoughts on these players, what should be done with them (I have talked to this guy a dozen times), and do you think someone has a true obligation to resign a completely lost position?

With younger and less experienced chess players, this "etiquette" rule goes out the window. Not only is it good for them to learn, they can sometimes draw or catch a win.

Nope. No such obligation, not even a moral one.
It's his game and his time too. He can do whatever he feels like within the rules.

Let's say you play Carlsen. He could look at you on move one with a look like "why even bother, you have zero chance". Which is factually correct. Do you also have a moral obligation to resign on move one and not waste his time?

Bored? Play instantly and go and get a drink and have a talk with the local barkeep. Or try to play chess in places where you would play people that are approximately your strength.

A player can resign when he wants, it´s his choice only. In my experience, new players in particular like to play out every position even if it´s dead lost.

What time control is this? If there´s time you could always grab a cup of coffee or something, let him wait for you to come back and mate him. Just enjoy the position, but make sure you checkmate him. If you feel particularly sadistic you can always underpromote and then mate him.

There is never an obligation to resign. By the rules, checkmate wins the game and every player has the right to make you prove that you can pull one off.

I've played on some occasions against one specific player in otb tournaments. He has the principle of playing every game out until mate. I do respect that behavior, it doesn't particularly bother me to have to play out an easily winning position. If anything, it trains my reflexes at it for faster time controls. Still, should you be bored, you can always try to find the quickest way to win as a challenge for yourself and boom - game gets interesting again.

If he's only rated 800 (so very beginner-level), I can understand it a lot more even. Back when I was only playing very occasionally, in one of the first games I won against my father, I got to a KQ vs K ending and he made me play it out. I had no experience about the correct approach and I really had to go through some trouble not to stalemate him. So, in that case, I find it a perfectly justified attempt for him to have played on. (Later on, when I got a bit better, he would resign earlier on). Conversely, good GMs resign all the time in endgame positions that I maybe couldn't convert at all, let alone easily. It only makes sense to resign, when *both* you and your opponent are good enough to understand how a position is completely lost. If he's an 800, he's naturally going to understand this a lot less than you. Plus, maybe he wants to learn by seeing how you're going to convert this or that position. In which case I'd find it disrespectful from you to wish to deny him this opportunity. When you're already winning, you really don't have much reason to complain.

The one thing that I admit is annoying is when a player just stops trying but still plays on, throwing out any unmotivated, bad moves (or, of course, the online behavior of letting your clock run down). Trying your best I can always respect, no matter how lost the position. Even so, I've signed up for a chess game and I don't think I'm entitled to anything more than my opponent abiding by the rules.

Long story short: no, you are never entitled to resignation by your opponent. On principle, it is always better to resign too late than too early.
(For funsies, you can have a look at this playlist - m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeq1Gl9NLFoqJxwZNobe-RxRoaZXfRETv)

I sometimes think this, but then they manage to stalemate or even set a trap for me, and it justifies their decision not to quit. I look at it as an opportunity to turn a winning position into an actual win.

The only time it really annoys me is when somebody plays right until it is 1 move from checkmate,then lets the clock run out.

Well, if he is a very young guy may perhaps not know it consciously, but such guys must be having some deep fighting spirit, and that should be respected and encouraged. Internet will show you even Kramanik missed a move and he got mated in 1. So what?

Though it is true that completely lost endgames can not be saved, it is equally (and perhaps more) true that every player makes crucial inaccuracies even in the completely winning stage of the game [Lasker-'The toughest task is to win the already won game.'], which often draws (by stalemate, perpetual check or insufficient material) or even wins for the lost side. I personally have a great number of games drawn/lost that were actually won and lost/drawn due to failure to maintain initiative and overconfidence.
Every player undergoes this phase, and I like to respect such guys as I was also one of them. A good player not only makes good moves, but he respects the player off-the board as well. Behavior, and etiquette becomes essential as you progress, and people imitate their seniors. Be a responsible player, be the way people love to follow you.
I respect your strength and the other guy also can a learn a lot from you, so why not inspire him to hold on to the best and learn something from him as well, like, as it might have been in your games, where you find hard to cope up even in a pawn down position, learn to sit and wait for your compensation to show up.

I had the same point of view long back, but I chose to be objective. Be his friend and guide him, he will be grateful to you. Hit him and you will have one more enemy. Choice is yours.

There is no point in resigning at his or your level. Anything could happen.

There is no obligation to resign. Checkmate ends the game.
But things are not so simple... Imagine Carlsen vs Caruana , one player a Queen and two Rooks ahead without compensation... There IS a moral issue for the losing side to resign. Could such a game go on for long?
There is no resignment in Bullet and Ultrabullet , of course...

No there's no obligation to resign, but if he's a jerk depends on his attitude, eg. "This is an interesting ending, I wonder what kind of technique my opponent will use to bring the checkmate.", or "I will never resign and I'll fight till my death!", vs "This annoying a****e is winning me so I will annoy him in return as much as possible." Jerks might not have many friends and might have nobody to talk to between games, for example.