People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

Here's a new one. I had a guy who was a knight and pawn ahead of me, I had terrible position, so I resigned. He got mad that I didn't finish the game. Go figure.

My Opponent in this position do a ragequit...
Why?

I’ve won a few lost positions by not resigning.  I’ve never won by resigning.  If I have the time and I’m still in the mood to play, I will continue.  My frustrated opponent can force checkmate, but they cannot force resignation.

MrOvercomplicator, (post #1857) Are you asking a complicated philosophical question on why various people "rage quit"? Or why they resigned in this position? If the second option - it is because they saw forced mate in one by ...Kg8 Qg7# and White wins. Did you perhaps "over-complicate" the situation?

If I were playing a fast time control, I would generally keep going regardless, unless checkmate was obvious. Managing your time while also being able to maintain your lead and force the win is the whole idea of "blitz chess." If my opponent has five seconds left on the clock and I have thirty seconds, but he is well ahead of me in material, he's gonna have to hurry up

No, i ask, why don't resign? I know, this is the end, but this isn't reason for "rage quit"... He/she can resign, or play Kg8. Both variation is better, then "rage quit"

True. I would play ...Kg8 here (rather than "rage quit") as they might not necessarily see Qg7#. Playing on when a single move could end the game I'd hardly call incorrect. If not terribly hopeless in a position, then often resignation comes out of respect for the opponent and their abilities. For a chess player around my level, my position must be pretty bad before I resign - but if I play against someone much higher rated, I may resign from a losing position sooner - as my trust in their converting abilities should be greater. GMs often resign if they drop a pawn without compensation simply because they know that their opponent will slowly grind out a win by easily trading down; both players have better things to do, so the losing player resigns. As the player ratings increase, the margin of a losing position should decrease before a resignation is called. 

According to more recent studies, a typical chess player tends to resign in a "lost" situation at what the computer evaluates at around 7.00 in either direction! This means that most players will not resign until about 7 points down in material! This is likely skewd by 1000 below rated players rightfully playing on in positions over a Queen down, but I think most people resign when a piece is dropped (3 points). Of course, some GM games may be called for a dropped pawn - but GMs are not the majority of chess players.

Well said and analyzed, KeSeto!

pawn position or lack of having pawns should be the breaking point. without pawn position you cannot afford trades. if you want to waste time on a loss game your choice, it is still only a game.

@tymatthews I would respectfully differ on the lack of pawn/pieces being the barometer for resignation.  I am fresh off of a children's tournament where most of the draw were stalemates because the opponent made a mistake in trying to close out the game.   We all have seen this even amongst adults in clubs/tournament games and online.  

I am currently in a king and bishop vs king and rook book draw. All pawns gone. My king is in the correct corner with regards to my bishop’s color. I do not expect my opponent to offer a draw. I believe he does not know the endgame study. Also, even if he did, he is correct in not offering a draw. One of us could timeout.

I don't mind them not resigning, as long as they are making their moved fairly quickly.

It's when they are playing super slow in a lost position, I get mad.

But I one opponent in a dead lost position in an online game. 3 days/move. But he played his last 20 or so moves in a few minutes each. After the game, I actually thanked him for playing the last part fast.

And I should note there was one point the where I chose a move, played it, moved my mouse over ENTER, and was about to click it, when I realized it was a game-losing blunder! So my opponent was right to play on.

I have had opponents slowing down in 14 days a move. I don’t get mad. I just do the same in other bad positions. Makes sense. It is lost positions that you have to think harder.

@LadyMisil, @varelse1.  I agree with Lady's point ( in an OTB match you have to slow down and think to try to determine the best options for your planned path out of a bad position.   One other thing to note for fellow chess.com players... many players are juggling quite a few simultaneous matches ( I am usually one of them as I average 40-50 simul matches on chess.com ).  In this situation leveraging/maximizing the time you have to make a move in each match is a smart strategy for balacing the number of games and ensuring you get to consider each enough to feel you are making what you think is the best move.   I have had to explain this to several opponents recently and once explained they usually understand.   Not to mention we all have lives outside of our chess.com games and real world demands on our time

No, actually, "I" am the Stalemate King

Agree. 

Opponent blunder(as mine) is behind the corner

I have blocked more than 100 players. Only people I know they are cheating or dishonest in some ways. Other people comments will help You when hesitating about a player.

Tegelviken, your comment is insightful and a good one, but I can’t see the relevance of it with regards to this topic.  The topic is about people who do not resign in lost positions.  Do you feel that these people cheat or are dishonest in some way?  If so, please elaborate.  And about “hesitating about a player”, do you mean hesitating in making a move or hesitating in blocking that player?  There seems to be a language problem.