People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

When you're a queen up with 10 seconds left I understand, but when there's like 2 minutes left and you're crushing I just sigh

The real frustrating thing is my opponent resigning.

In fact, most games I won are because my opponent makes it boring by resigning.

[COMMENT DELETED]

Sometimes i do like when i lost a queen,but sometimes my opponents lose a queen the actually resign immediately and i laugh LOL

usually happens to me when i play a game in a hurry and have to wait for time to expire to experience victory. Sucks but a win is a win. Like a pawn is a pawn

 Chess websites should adopt a variation of the "mercy rule" like in Little League. If some one is up a queen (or equivalent) and there is no forced checkmate then he can claim victory and end the game. In Little League it limits humiliation. In chess, it would prevent vengeful and vexatious creeps. Why not? They added rules to win on time for that very reason.

Thank them for playing cat and mouse, hope chess.com has got a nice smiley for it.

Material doesn't win games, it's what you do with it that does.  At lower levels some players are so bad they are just as likely to lose their own Queen as win a game a Queen up.

Who care about humiliation or vengeance, you just get on and win and then move on.

No. There is value in being a good person. Only bad people try to deliberately cause trouble.

I once won a game when an opponent forfeited the game, and I was pretty much a goner. However, you do have in instances where you feel you can win a game. Or fear that you might disappoint the other player.

Its the people who dont move and let time run out that suck!

See game 2102984022 for a good reason to keep playing in VERY bad positions.

 https://www.chess.com/es/daily/game/2102984022

is a really interesting game (it started with a misclick; i meant to play g3) but it shows why some people play on in very bad positions. Comments will be much appreciated

not only can your opponent make a blunder (never give up) but its just fun to play out games and improve by seeing if you can improve your position. Games especially at low levels would go really quick if you automatically win by capping a minor piece when your opponent makes a miscalculation. (this can be different if you lose a piece early and just don't want to play on and at high levels you could argue that the game is probably lost at that point with such infrequent blunders) but I would want my opponent to play on, whats the point of a game when you never even get to the end and deliver mate. Also they may want to fight for a draw. I figure if your down by less then a queen it is still worth the challenge to finish the game. If an opponent expects you to resign well i just assume that they are not confident in their endgame abilities and/or think that they may make a mistake and let you back into the game. As for blitz/bullet games there's even less of a reason to resign since blunders are common and you may lucky with something. Also the entire point of a blitz game is to see who can manage time better and still push out solid moves, if you are down a minor piece but up on time it may seem cheeky to start playing fast moves to fun down the clock but like I said, time management is a major point of blitz and if you took a few extra seconds to figure out how to get up in pieces then it should hurt you down the road if you become short on time. With that said if I am down by quite a bit and clearly have no chance of winning in blitz or classic I will give my opponent the  victory, sometimes the opponent just plays a better game than you. What i really dislike is when people start demanding forfeits if you are down by a little or even a lot, whats the harm in finishing a game if someone wants to, in fact if they start demanding a forfeit I will go out of my way to try to make it the longest game possible because you should be able to decide when and if you want to resign. 

That's a pretty negative idea don't you think? Not just bad people mess up is just wrong and there is value if you are willing to play on if your better you should prove it by oh I dunno actually playing through an entire game? (you should be able to win it being up by so much of course so why not play on) I'd surrender for sure if I lost my queen but my opponent should have no trouble mating me if they want the win, a mercy rule just take the fun out of it and a player isn't humiliated, its their choice to resign or play on, its much more humiliating if they lose a queen and are immediately notified that their opponent is the better human and they have no chance to improve the position or just their skills in general so why even try to play chess. Mercy rule is for matches that are clearly won but would take too long to finish and in that case stick to rapid if you think your opponent is going out of their way to waste your time. At that point they are just rude, but its usually not the case and they usually do resign when down by a queen, just saying they usually not a diabolical person if they want to play on.

When it's over..it's over.

No. I respectfully disagree. Negative would be to allow noxious behavior to continue. Chess is a board game. Board games were invented to improve social cohesion not to encourage all manner of misbehavior.

As to "proving it", invoke the mercy rule and it is automatically proven. If one claims victory by the mercy rule then it is perfectly legitimate because the mercy rule is a rule. No different than castling or capturing a pawn en passant.

Being a better human isn't about inflicting or enduring abusive crap. A better human says, "It looks like I blundered. Set'em up again."

Playing on to supposedly learn something? Plug the pgn into Arena or some other suitable platform and go from there. Let your opponent get on with his life.

The mercy rule doesn't have to be a hard forfeit. Maybe the losing side can ask for 5 more moves. Maybe it isn't invoked. Like a draw by threefold repetition must be claimed, the mercy rule would have to be actively invoked to operate.

The original issue posed is: "People who do not resign in a LOST position" (emphasis added). But most of the comments here address a different issue: "People who do not resign in a LOSING position."

A losing position still has sporting play available -- a lost position does not.  Proper chess etiquette demands resigning a LOST position.  It allows continued play in a losing position.

Know the difference between losing and lost.  Be a sport; not a rube.

Who blunders first isn't what decides a game.  Who blunders last is more important.  Playing at an ordinary level that is, of course.  Playing at Grandmaster level the definition of a 'blunder' is a bit more relaxed.

Etiquette is over-rated in online chess.  And the difference between a lost and a losing position is not a black and white one.  The only truly lost position is when you get check-mated.