When Should'nt you Resign?
The chess.com forums run rife with topics about how people's opponents should have resigned and in almost all cases i agree with the complaitant, a lot of times it is such a waste of time to keep playing on down a queen or a piece. So for the past month i've bookmarked some of my games where i blundered but kept playing and went on to win and some cases where i have been the winning won and my opponent kept playing and won, in an effort to try to determine when should you not resign...
Case 1: Some sort of fathomable compensation for the piece:
It was of paramount importance that White is forced to create kingside weaknesses (by playing g3, f4 etc.) before he is allowed to win my piece. I saw that my LSB was uncontested and if I could create a battery along the a8-h1 diagonal i would annihilate so I played on down a piece. Yes he could have easily won but this was a bullet/blitz game so no one is gonna play perfect especially if they have exploitable weaknesses.
Unfortunately my opponent ran out of the time there but i was about to win back my piece and win the exchange aswell.
This game was quite a dissappointment as it was yet another case of the weak backrank... all i had to do was push a pawn instead of getting greedy anyway, i was up a queen and i guess he decided to play on just incase i didnt fix my back rank issues.
It's a common saying among even grandmasters that if you still have a knight on the board in a blitz game never resign. The following game is probobly my biggest swindle thus far and i gotta say, I am not proud of it...