how does the winner feel when the loser resigns?

I found a lot of topics that danced around this question, but not the answer I was looking for.

OK, I'm new here and would like to be a "good" member.  So my question is when your clearly winning do you prefer your opponent resign or play to the end? 

How does it affect the winners standing?  I'll fight my game to the end, but when someone has clear control, does that just bore him / her and they want you to resign, or is it more important to finish the game?

For me, I still make huge mistakes and a person would be not wise to resign to me.  I've had it down to I had a queen rook and ended up stalemating because I goofed and didn't check the king and didn't allow him anywhere to move.  duh.  Done that when I was exchanging a pawn into a queen too.

You are going to get answers that run the gamut on this one. There are those who will say that to play an untenable position to "the end" is not right because it shows disrespect to your opponent.

I think this topic has two answers. For people like me and you who are not very good, playing on even when your position is compromised because you have a greater chance of your opponent making a mistake or a blunder which you can use to turn the tempo in your favor. I have won many games I should have lost. On the other hand, I have lost many games in which I had a great advantage in tempo and material. I have read that for newer or lower rated players, playing to the end is helpful because you are able to learn about endgame tactics. That makes sense.

That being said, I have had many games in which I was whipping my opponent so badly that I just could not understand why they did not resign.

I will leave the answer from the perspective of high rated players to them. From what I have seen my original comments seem true.

I would rather have the guy play till the end if I were clearly winning but would rather resign than play till the end if I were clearly losing. For me, I only resign when there's a mate in a few moves because I don't want the other guy thinking that I didn't see it.

I dont care.

Resign if you want, play on if you want.

If they have nothing else to try for on the board, or start shuffling pieces around meaninglessly while I have an overwhelming positing, then yes, I wish they'd just resign.

So if I'm up a lot of material, but they have a few more tricks to try, that's fine.  Or if my opponent is a beginner, I don't mind if they play until mate.  It's good experience to see how to win such positions for them, and they're probably not familiar with resigning if they're new.  They may even have the feeling that "anything could happen" which is not true if they're not setting any problems for the player with an overwhelming position heh.

Some other things to consider:

Time control: in blitz, play on. you never know what could happen in a 3 or 5 minute game. In a game of 30 min or more, a lost position is lost and unless I see some real potential for complex tatics, I personally resign.

Ratings do count (a bit), if I am playing someone rated quite high, their chance of a blunder is much lower, and playing on depends on the position. Again, the  more complex the position, the more you can play on. For example, early in the game to go down a pawn or two or even a minor piece can be overcome in certain positions. But if you in a K+4 pawns vs K+2 pawns ending against someone who knows what they are doing, your chances are slim to say the least.

BUT, it is quite legal to play on in even a hopeless position, and accidental stalemates or an overlooked mating combination can occur, and you have every right to play on. I personally would not be offended unless someone drags out a long game in say a K+R vs K ending, moving every minute or two with no chance of winning. I have had players tell me 'I will resign if you want, but if you are willing to play on it is good learning for me' and I have accepted and played on. The ratings change is the same for a win by mate or resignation, so it doesn't affect the winner in any objective manner.

Keep playing. 

this thread is very thoughtful

i only allow my opponent to resign when his mind is in my back pocket.

If my opponent has a combination that leads to a quick checkmate then I will let him/her, out of respect for finding the combination. But when it is just winning material (leading to a clearly won game) you might as well resign immediately. I would hope my opponent reacts the same.

With all these responses it seems to be a game by game decesion.  Well this does help me a lot believe it or not.  I guess the easist solution would be to ask the person in control what he / she would prefer.  Maybe they would like to get on with another game, maybe they are wanting practice on end game.  Maybe they just like playing.

Thanks.

Doesn't matter to me, I don't throw away games from a piece up, but a lot of people I play do, so I can understand why someone would want to play on; I probably would in that situation against someone with a similar rating. Last time I dropped a piece with no compensation I won. When your opponents get better, it makes sense to resign earlier.

Against the person I play most often, I'm happy to resign a lot earlier, and she resigns early too, because it's easier to know when the game's over when you've seen their technique.

the more my opponent played on in an ever-worsening position, the more crocodile tears i shed .... accentuate the positive and enjoy it (but i was a noob then).

Yeah, he's talking crap.

Rated players, especially masters, do know when it's a draw or a lost game. For beginners and intermediate players, (like me, lol!) I keep on playing until the bitter end!

indeed, close to a finish: ill let him finish. Will it take a long time with slow material loss.. resign.

only your soul knows when it's time to resign. 

we now have two co-best-ever definitive statements detailing when to resign!

i would not like for my oponent to resign. because there might be a way out noone sees. proof is someone had a check, but both players called it mate, and my friend walks over moves a bishop kills his rook and he is then out of check. but the guy trapped his king in a corner, and lost soon after.

Think about it this way.

"Maybe the chess.com computers and decent 'cause they can't resign."