People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

Why do people get upset when they are winning and their opponent refuses to resign?

"The hardest game to win is a won game" -Lasker

Maybe that's why.  The hardest part of the game is still in front of them, and their opponent refuses to spare them the trouble.

[COMMENT DELETED]

It's a quote that sounds good, but let's be honest, most of the time it is rubbish!  We've all had games that support that quote, but most 'won game' are just fun to finish off.   At Lasker's level a 'won game' would be a pawn up or just a positional stranglehold normally so it is more understandable.

This is "it depends". Most people will tell you it is poor sportsmanship, and this is especially true if the opponent is a vastly superior player. OTOH if your opponent has only 15 seconds on their clock and you have 5 minutes, even though you are a queen down, you'll probably win on time. Some would say that's poor sportsmanship, but time controls were introduced for a good reason. It might be a cheap win, but a win is a win, and they lost on time. But a contest between a pair of wood pushers... you might be up a queen but your just as likely to blunder away your queen. Most of the games I play at 10 minutes I lose on time even though I'm ahead -- rook. queen, two minor pieces, etc. yet I lose. Truthfully when I am way ahead like that I wish they would be sportmanlike and resign, but there are many, many, many players here on chess.com who will resign even if I have but 15 seconds left on man clock; likewise I'll resign once I fall too far behind, and I am no wood pusher -- I am a very respectable USCF Class B player, and at 30 min here at Chess.com over 1700. I just suck at 10 minute chess (1200 - 1400).  

Yeah there are people who will continue to hope for a stalemate or an internet crisis no matter what

"We've all had games that support that quote, but most 'won game' are just fun to finish off. "

Yeah, and I doubt that anyone is complaining about their opponents not resigning in fun situations like that.  I'm thinking that people are expecting their opponents to give up when there are still plenty of resources left.

Good grief! 94 new comments!?

None of them in the last 12 days though until yours!

They say “never quit!” Resigning a chess game is just that!

I'd prefer to not give up and work my way towards a stalemate than have a loss because I was in a losing position and I gave up.  Plus it frustrates the hell out of some folks who have to work hard to earn the checkmate. I like that bit. 

You sound like a chess parent. Resigning a chess game isn’t quitting. It’s choosing not to disrespect your opponent by suggesting that they’re going to hang something. It’s choosing a new game or a post-mortem over a lost position. It’s choosing not to play a position where you cannot be objective in any sense of the word. It’s choosing a proper end to the game over 30 agonizing moves of your opponent grabbing material followed by a mate with multiple queens. Let’s put it this way: is one win worth 20 extra hours of play that could be put to better use for both you and your opponents? 

If the game is really that over, why would you complain that your opponent won't resign?  You should be able to make the moves easily and the game should be over soon anyway, regardless.

Exactly. I can and will finish opponents who don’t resign off in the most creative way possible.

👍

Which might be exactly what your opponent is looking for. It's the reason in those cases I don't resign, because I feel I can learn something by playing the game to the end, even when it's clear that, barring a wonder (or blunder), I will lose it for sure.

On the other hand, especially against opponents from my level, game analysis shows that in most cases, both sides made severe blunders, so the outcome of the game could have been a different one, if I (or my opponent) had just made one less mistake. Meaning that resigning in such a case means that I give my opponent an easy win that he might not have been able to get on his own.  And I don't think at all that it is disrespectful towards my opponents if I expect them to show me how they will win this game in those games.

edit: especially as (apart from clear loss of material) I do not even recognize some of those blunders during the game.

I really like how Eluarelon put it. To me it makes perfect sense to learn how your opponent (with a particular rating) might try to finish the game if they seem to have an advantage. There are always people who are better than we are at playing chess and if there is an opportunity to learn how someone better does something, why not take advantage of that opportunity? But of all the good reasons to keep playing even when one side has an advantage I think the best reason is entitlement. I dont like it when people feel they are entitled to anything. It reminds me of a beggar on the side of the street who turns down a job offer, food, clothing, or conversation. He just wants money and feels he is entitled to it for simply being there. Dont ask for it, work for it.

As he said, it’s a waste of time.

Playing chess is a waste of time too if you can't be bothered to checkmate your opponent!

👍

If you are in a hopeless position, playing on is a waste of time because the game is already over.