If you want to practice winning won endgames, set them up and play them against a computer. No need to drag your opponents through the process.

Maybe an extra pawn is more sensible than an extra rook, as hinted at by pfren...

Ha! You were a fool to enable unchecked packets! Yes, it was I who stole your not-so-well hidden plans from your server! 

[By the way, you'd need to move pretty fast to push someone off a building then rush down to the twentieth floor to flamethrower him as he passes by. ]

i so agree that dragging out a 'won' game is pointless... then again i find it most frustrating when an opponent who clearly is in a position to mate in a 'won' game (eg pieces up etc) does not do it...

weather through luck or skill (sometimes we must admit there's a combination of both in chess) he's gained an advantage but instead of making the winning move to end the game proceeds to sit back and mess about pushing pawns for no apparent reason.

so... if he's happy to muck about and drag the game on & on why should i not oblige?

also it's sometimes worth hanging on, it's possible to force a stalemate sometimes even when you appear to be at a clear disadvantage.

i suppose this may serve to highlight the above reference to opponents resigning early depriving some players of much needed endgame practice?

i've had so many surprising games... draws that should have been losses, wins or losses that could have gone either way and so on, it's part of what keeps it interesting.

@Imaginary_Opposition

http://blog.chess.com/stubborn_d0nkey/when-my-opponents-don

point taken, but that's the other way around to what i'm thinking of... the times when your opponent should have pressed home an advantage but just simply don't do it, rather than the times you should resign but play on to annoy or be petty... i'm not like that but it annoys me when people play well then just stop looking for good/winning moves when they are ahead.

if they are not capable of finishing the game with mate or if they drag it out then the game's not over. don't tell me i have bad form for not resigning (i don't think you are but others may) it's just as true they show bad form by not finishing the game.

also i sometimes like to allow a game to play out if i'm up against a superior opponent (better rating) to see how they handle the situation and perhaps learn from them. that's perfectly acceptable and maybe should be encouraged more if it's to learn from them and not annoy them.

sometimes there's a point where i know they will win, either from game-style or whatever has evolved on the board... but even then i don't like to go down without trying anything that may lead to even a slim hope... when those hopes are gone then sure i'll resign, but until then, it's not over as long as i have something on the board to fight the chess battle with...

I agree with you Imaginary. I think it's perfectly acceptable to play on in a lost position, at least at the lower levels.

When my opponents don't know how to mate, I seem to forget how to resign

...what i mean by thinking of the situation the other way around to your suggestion.

(sometimes i don't explain things as clearly as i intend to, hope this is clear enough)

Yeah, I got you, but I just wanted to show that the reverse is also "possible"

sure thing, works both ways :-)

but where i have the patience to deal with a player who puts off resigning i can get frustrated by one who can't put his win together... maybe it's just me?

Since we all are capable of making mistakes, and since emotional stress can play such a big part in competition, the choice of whether or not to resign is a legitmate arrow in one's quiver.

I've been in quite a few games where I'm clearly in a position to win (yes, it does happen) and the other player will just let his clock run down rather than resign, which to me is really bad sportmansip.  I mean, come on! Either resign and we'll start over or else let me play someone else. So in this case I feel it's actually very good to resign.

i'm not thinking about short games here... for those time is a factor that can mean you may lose in a winning position if you took too long to get there, or you may make blunders from pressure on the clock that don't reflect the game on the board.

i am in agreement though that the only reason to continue a timed game in these circumstances is if there's a distinct time difference, you may have a positional disadvantage and a time advantage (or vice-versa) that means the game can still swing either way.

sometimes it's real tricky knowing how to factor the time into a shorter game.

i do not see how it is unfair since it still couts as the other peson winning

no resigning isnt unfair if i know ive lost and my oppanant knows also, he would want me to residn rather than plod along to the end