All right. Let's look at this another way. Suppose for arguments sake, a person should resign when they are a Queen down. How about if they are a rook down, should they resign. How about a knight down? Where does it stop? A pawn down? They have lost the initiative but material is even? How about when they are up material but you have "compensation" a good attack? I like the current way where everyone is free to resign when and only when they personally think they should. The evaluation of whether or not one side is far enough ahead can come in the discussion and analysis AFTER the game has been played out, not before.
People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.
Sort:
They don't resign, it's their fault. Just checkmate him. If he feels tired later after the game, it is his problem, not yours!!! So do not mind them.....
#GoodLuck Don't forget to do the same if u are in a losing position cause in a tournament, I blundered a queen but checkmated my opponent. LOL
Nilocra_the_White wrote:
All right. Let's look at this another way. Suppose for arguments sake, a person should resign when they are a Queen down. How about if they are a rook down, should they resign. How about a knight down? Where does it stop? A pawn down? They have lost the initiative but material is even? How about when they are up material but you have "compensation" a good attack? I like the current way where everyone is free to resign when and only when they personally think they should. The evaluation of whether or not one side is far enough ahead can come in the discussion and analysis AFTER the game has been played out, not before.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to resign, just that if you are a Queen down then you could better spend time on a new game.
I've often resigned games with even material personally, but equally I have played on a piece down too, usually in Bullet or Blitz.
The strong players know when to resign.
There are so many possibilities in chess, but what is the one advantage a computer has at chess that humans could learn from, and that even the cheap 80's computer chess toys have... They don't get mad; they play even!
Well, he got mated quickly after getting into trouble so not really any different to resigning unless he spent 10 minutes playing his last 3 moves.
Victory belongs to the most persevering - Napoleon Bonaparte
Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools - Napoleon Bonaparte
(i searched these up to make sure i was getting it right)
Well theres that, oh and when i was double checking the quotes i found this one
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
if you find resigning a mistake dont try to stop them 
We have vampire threads on Chess.com. They just won't die.
WELL, being one of those HORRIBLE people, that won't resign, no matter what, I like to make my opponent work for their MATE. Anyhow, my opponent might need to learn how to get to a checkmate and I know that I watch how my opponent is going to end it. But I really don't hold out on purpose just to frustrate them.
promote ALL the remaining pawns to queens then finish him off!
opticRED wrote:
promote ALL the remaining pawns to queens then finish him off!
I once beat the easiest computer of an app after getting frusturated by promoting to 9 queens to finish him off. It's possible.
EpicAwesome61636 wrote:
opticRED wrote:
promote ALL the remaining pawns to queens then finish him off!
I once beat the easiest computer of an app after getting frusturated by promoting to 9 queens to finish him off. It's possible.
…to finish it off...
opticRED wrote:
promote ALL the remaining pawns to queens then finish him off!
Excellent. "If you don't resign, I will bore you to death!" 
If they don't resign and it is online chess or classical live chess it is a fair act of disrespect to you. If it is Rapid, Blitz or Bullet it's absolutely normal, they just fight to the end and expect you to timeout.
furthest
what about when the enemy knows he's lost and lets the time run out?
Rival, rather
Well. Ok.
Ultimately depending on your rating being down a piece is technically losing, but just as easy for your opponent to blunder as well. Even if you only have a king your opponent could still accidentally stalemate you. If you have a winning position then simply win the game, plenty to be learned by winning a won position.
Too bad you weren't there to advise the Travis, Bowie and Crockett at the Alamo,
Actually, Travis, Bowie et al, should have resigned. Getting slaughtered for nothing was stupid. But this has nothing to do with chess. We're not going to die gloriously at Thermopylae. It's just a matter of playing on for a few moves.
FUN FACT: Modern historians estimate that there were around 7,000 Greeks facing the Persians at Thermopylae of whom 300 were Spartan warriors. So why do the Spartans get all the credit? A better PR department?
The reason that Spartans get the credit is their effort allowed Greece time to get its act together and raise an army that held off the capture of all Greece, same with the Alamo. Same with a sac in chess. Sometimes when you are a Queen up it is because there was a Queen sac. Oh I know, only people who know they can safely take a Queen sac will do so, Ha Ha.
If you are a queen up because of a Queen sac that actually had some merit then it probably isn't a 'lost position' anyway. Though if someone is a full Queen up then one party or other should probably be resigning. If they are good players then either someone lost a Queen or they sac'd it for a clear win. If they are poor players then someone just lost a Queen and could either play on or quit wasting their time and play a new game with a full army instead!