I appreciate that some of you like to battle on until the bitter end, but here are two positions from two games I played where I decided to embarress my non-resigning opponent: 

Do you like to play chess?

In the second game, isn't your queen on the wrong colour at move 67? I can see why your opponent would be embarrassed.

In the second example, I was white, my pieces were on blacks starting squares as I was pretending to be black.

I laughed and laughed. Thanks

Lmao, this was hilarious. Nice job

Thanks, I'm glad some of you got it ;)

rofl. epic!

at least you wont die without posting these games

Your 1st game was a pathetic show of sportsmanship , the bitter end was prolonged by yourself , and stop kicking your dog ! .

why didn't the other player just claim a draw in game one? i think it was past 50 moves.

That is *too* funny! I can hear his king channeling the spirit of the Black Knight now...  "It's just a flesh wound."

this is so funny...btw,you attack very well.

Thanks! I added a new game too.

I can't figure out why Black resigned at that point.

50 moves without a capture or pawn move. there were lots of pawn moves.

In the first game above, you should not have played 152...Rh7#. Instead, you should have played as follows: 152...Rf3 153.Kh2 Bh6 154.Kh1 Rh7 155.Kh2 Rh8 156.Kh1 Bf8#.

I wanted to, but I ran out of time :(

You resign whenever you want. It's that simple. Resigning in my opinion is more of a convenience for the losing player than the winning player; it is basically a way out of misery. It's a bad habit to "expect" resignation. I think that this expectation developed when players (of any era!) got used to a certain typical point of resignation. That shouldn't change the fact that the fundamental point of resignation is to, again, allow yourself out of misery.

Although it can be used to show respect to a player, this should not be the priority. It's more important that the losing player fights for as long as he wants than for the winning player to get a quick win he feels he deserves.