People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

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

Well, by definition, if you are playing on it isn't over, just an opponent too lazy to finish it off.

I once played a 3-day per move tournament, where one guy got into an obviously lost position and promptly decided to go on vacation.  A couple months later his vacation time ran out, and so he decided to play on.  He took the full 3 days on every move.  A month or so later, I mated him.  That was the last time I will ever consent to play a game at 3 days per move.

Despite that ridiculous scenario, I am also among the people that think it's not necessarily rude to play a game out just because you're down a piece or two, or a few pawns.  I have lost won games, and won lost, and know that it can and will happen again.  I try to be reasonable though; I'm not going to play on in an impossible scenario.  And when I've got hideous chances, I tend to play fast to get it over with.

Why would anyone give up knowing the human brain can make a mistake at any moment. On ya bike!

You prove my point about poor sportsmanship. At 10 minutes I can be up 7-10 pts... and lose on time. My opponent is clearly a wood pusher. It is one thing if you are a tactical master, and can sac a rook or queen, but these are usually blunders. Trying to run out the clock is cheap. Throwing pieces at someone that has no goal other than to slow down in hopes of running them out of time is cheap.  I have resigned when I lose a minor piece or or the position is a losing position. But as a rule of thumb I RESIGN when I'm down 5-6 pts. regarless of my opponent's rating. Winning on time when you are down a lot of points is unsportsmanlike 

Taking all of your 10 minutes without reaching the end of the game and expecting any outcome other than the deserved loss on time us cheap.  Anyone who can't complete their game within the time limit deserves to lose.

I wasn't talking about that scenario at all, especially as I have played very few games with that time limit, and most of my games have  an x days/move limit. I kinda understand where you're coming from and I agree that trying to win on time in a game that I've already lost under normal circumstances wouldn't be something that I would do myself.

This said, I also agree with glamdring that if I can't finish the game in 10 minutes, especially from a position clearly won, it's kinda my own fault and something where I need to improve. So instead of blaming my opponent of being a poor sportsman (even when I might actually think that to be true), I'll try to work on my weaknesses to get better results in the future.

Winning on time is not unsportsmanlike.  Time is a part of the game.  Flagging your opponent is a legitimate strategy and is a challenge to pull off.  Your complaint sounds like sour grapes. If you are in a far superior position, it shouldn't take much time at all to win the game.  If it does require that much time and thought, your position must not have been as good as you thought.  Your opponent had enough defensive resources to win the game.  So he was *smart* not to resign.

I'll resign immediately if I think I have a lost position...unless I dislike the person I'm playing. In that case I may decide to do something else for awhile and let him wait for the flag to fall.

If you play fast games or turn-based games, not much of your time is taken. Longer live games offer the most potential for an opponent to waste time in a hopeless position, but I don't recall this happening to me.

This is because the higher you and your opponents are skilled in chess--the most likely they will understand when they are lost and thus resign.

With me--after almost 70 years of play this has not really happened that an opponent will refuse to resign in a hopeless position.

[the only exceptions to this has been in vote chess where the teams were not so strong]

You must be joking. 10 minutes?! With all (or at least some) respect; if you lose on time in a 10 minute game, you suck. When you were whining about this, I thought you were talking about a 30 second hyper-bullet match. Or, at most, a 1 minute bullet match. If you manage to play for TEN full minutes, in a winning position, and can't even checkmate your opponent... then you actually deserve to lose twice as many rating points as usual. Holy s#!t that's miserable. Running out of time in a 10 minute snail game. Play a little bullet, and you should learn to play faster. 

Well said. If it takes too long to reach a winning position then you don’t deserve the winning position in the first place!

That's why I never resign

What’s why?

I love it when my opponents are so angry that I don't resign.

So the reason you don’t resign is because you just want to annoy your opponents? That bad sportsmanship!

If you play very strong players they will resign early as in this example:

Weak players who can't beat their opponents sometimes make do with annoying them.

That being said, it is often reasonable to make a player demonstrate they can finish a game off within the time control if it is blitz. If I see little chance that they won't, I resign - this saves my time and theirs. Just having a lot more material does not necessarily make a win easy at fast time controls. It's fun winning by creating problems when you are a queen down.