People who DO NOT RESIGN in a lost position.

Wow.  I've seen shorter dissertations.

But not every bad move is a blunder, some "blunders" are great moves. That's when the creativity starts. My USCF and online rating are about the same, so I'm the first to admit my abilities are very limited. But I was playing a game a few years ago against someone a little over 200 points better than me. After several good moves, he was able to force me to lose a rook. Once he took the rook it looked hopeless, but he got a strange look on his face, one of not really shock, but confusion and worry. 

After I saw his expression I took my time and tried to see what appeared to be something for him to worry about. I thought I had made a terrible move, losing a rook, and the game. But once I figured out the path now that the rook was gone, he resigned a few moves later. So I learned that people who are better than me are a lot more qualified to determine if a move I make is a blunder or not. I have a much deeper appreciation now for people who do not resign, because there is ALWAYS something I dont see.

Right... this is an EXTREMELY rare case, and as such isn't really relevant.

Unless you're a very strong player playing another very strong player I think it's a good thing to keep playing.  Personally, I don't have any illusions about my brilliant chess moves - I just like to win.  And it sometimes happens that I blunder a piece in the opening against a player of my own strength and later win the game.  I've even wondered at times whether giving material away early in the game can be advantageous.  It isn't recommended, of course!  But less material can mean a freer game for one player - or it seems so anyway...

To Enderman:

My comment (#1883): "The more that a player like Enderman complains, the more I will play on in a lost position."

Oh, you consider that a personal attack?  Originally I did not mean it as such, but now I am glad you took it that way.  You deserve it, lol!

Care to play a 14 day per move game with me?  Muahaha!!

1. [Right... Still not an argument.]
Never said it was.
2. [Why are you so obsessed with making sure the vocabulary used is accurate when it's perfectly clear what I mean? By me winning, I mean that you concede your point.]
Not an issue of vocabulary, but not particularly relevant either, so it is unnecessary explaining it.
3. [I can see that you'll be no different, considering how you act superior for no good reason.]
The only person acting superior here is yourself, and I've already clarified how this is the case.
4. [If my argument had a demonstrable fallacy, you would dismiss my argument. You wouldn't dismiss the conclusion,...]
I already addressed this previously. I'm afriad you're not acquainted with the burden of proof. Either way, this is not a main point which needs rebuttal, so I'll move on.
5. [If I have beliefs or views, and I project those onto other people, it means that I think they have the same beliefs/views that I possess, with no evidence but because I possess them. Wanting people to follow a standard of decency does not involve projection.]
This differs signficantly from what your usage implied. Now tell me where in this comment did the person say anything about your feelings:
" Here here!! While it may be frustrating to persons on the opposite end Every player has the right to play out their game and learn from it. Every human chess player blunders ( and can recall losing a won game as a result of an oversight/mistake etc. At best they recover and manage a draw at worst they lose and learn. In each case had their opponent resigned when it was "apparent" they were going to lose, they would not have been able to have earned the win or draw ( "stalemates by sloppy end game play not withstanding" ). This is a timeless argument and one that is perpetuated by players learning the game on both ends; however outside of the discussions and good points for not resigning made here, I will refer all to Mr. GSerper's well summarised article published on the subject on chess.com. In the end he states that the best way to end your frustration with players who don't resign is to "Learn to mate them efficiently". Chess is a contest that you are trying to win. Learn your mating patterns and end games to bring it to its quickest conclusion . If I am on the other end I will expect no less and learn from the experience. If I am on the winning end, I likewise will look to practice my end games in these scenarios."
Not once here did this person say you possess any set of feelings or beliefs whatsoever aside from anything you had already confirmed. Anyway, if that's your definition of projection, then that makes this another irrelevant point, so we can forget about it.
6. [Are you going to tell me what I claimed that you didn't say? Or are you going to try (unsuccessfully) to make me search for what's either a needle in a haystack, or more likely, completely non-existent. You refuse to even tell me what argument I misrepresented.]
I already told you what you misrepresented, it isn't my responsibility to tell you again. It's not as though you particularly have to care about this.
7. [Because it's possible, but stupid. It's the nitpicking I was talking about, where you try to 1-up me on things that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.]
The specific thing I was nitpicking wasn't irrelevant at the time.
[Despite this, you still accused me of projecting my own views, an accusation that is literally impossible to prove true, considering I hadn't even presented my reasoning, only a claim that you conceded was true.]
No, your reasoning was pretty obvious from the beginning of the conversation, considering you talked to many people beforehand, and even when you "officially" introduced your argument, it wasn't different from what I already had stated your argument was indeed.
7. [I explained in point 4 why this wasn't projection. My definition (or any other) of reasonable is completely subjective, so obviously it's not going to be "rigorous or objective". I'm not trying to pass a law, I'm trying to debate a social standard.]
Whether you're passing a law or not isn't relevant. Debates more often than not require rigor, if not objectivity.
8. [Considering the rules are from a place called asperger cafe (https://aspergercafe.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/the-ten-unwritten-rules-of-social-relationships/), it's reasonable to assume the purpose of the website is to teach well-established social rules to people that struggle in social situations.]
They talk about politeness, they never define it nor provide any standards. So it doesn't bring you any step forward in this conversation.
9. [Complete objectivity has its place in classical math, but it's not good at dealing with real-world problems.]
I don't know what your definition of "complete objectvity" is, but I assume you've never heard of the scientific method, for instance? Anyhow, saying objectivity isn't good at dealing with real-world problems is unrealistic.
8. [Obviously, the percentage was just a simple demonstration of my argument. In reality, you have to reason out the winning chances for yourself, and while doing this you can automatically account for the possibility of external factors. You might not know all extraneous factors, but you don't need to, you can still know the average chance of winning with the possibility of extraneous factors considered.]
So I assume we're all of the sudden on agreement then.
9. [Consider a hypothetical infinite match between 1600s where match exhaustion isn't a factor (The players don't get more tired as the match goes on.) Surely, I could name endgame positions, perhaps when one side has at least a queen, the opponent has no pieces, and no potential passed pawns, there's no immediate stalemate/checkmate threats, and there's no time issue, such that the winning player could win a huge majority of the time. Obviously this is an extreme example, but it serves to prove that positions exist where there's no reasonable chance for one side to save the game.]
Hypotheticals that oversimplify aren't going to help your argument precisely because they ignore the many factors I proposed exist. Either way, these things are unrealizable, so they don't help your argument either.
10. [I'm definitely well backed among master level players. Even Nakamura, the patron saint of not giving up hope in bad positions, will still resign when things get hopeless.]
This doesn't at all equate with finding not resigning obnoxious. A few of them may find it obnoxious, but have no reason to think it applies to most of them. I'm sure Nakamura will have many reasons to resign in many games, being the god that he is. I'm sure many other players will. It doesn't say much about the occassions in which they don't resign. More importantly, the fact that these reason may not be universally applicable (and in many situations aren't). I'm taking into account more than just positions, and not in every situation will the factors other than position be completely negligible.
11. [And seriously? Not wanting to waste my time is the wrong temperament? Grandmasters don't like it when their opponents don't resign, someone (I forget who) even said they were irritated in a press conference when Nakamura delayed resigning in a hopeless position. Did he lack the temperament to play chess? What a stupid, irrelevant, ad hominem attack.]
Somewhat of a false analogy, since this citing one example of a single player of a single time. I'm sure there are times when some players get irritated for a number of reasons, which may not necessarily involve wasting time. It's a different thing to be consistently annoyed by it every time it happens. Additionally, it still doesn't change the fact that it virtually has nothing to do with being considerate, and that it doesn't involvve any sort of rights. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, you said you're not trying to pass a law.
12. [Here. We'll go over to lichess and look up classical games between 2000s (which is around 1800 on chess.com probably). We'll search for every common opening with at least 7500 plays. Then we'll look at the 4 most recent games to see how many times a game ends in checkmate, in a drawn out endgame. Even with your 'optimistic' perspective, comeback games from a certain point are extremely rare, so we don't need to look at those, but I'll note those if I find any.]
The games don't prove much. Sure, they for the most part support your claim, but someone who took statistics should know that this is by no means a representative sample. Either, there is a number of reasons why they could have resigned or not resigned, as I said. Assuming that position is the only reason inevitably leads to the assumption that we're robots, or it is outright unjustified. This also accounts for a single set of possible circumstances in playing chess.
13. [There are good reasons why refusing to resign is irritating,...]
To you. Basing an argument on the fact that something is irritating is, well, not much of an argument. And if it's up to the player in situation whether resigning is reasonable or not, then you don't have much of an overall solid stance at all. There are many situations where arguing from complete subjectivity can work. This isn't one of them.
14. [...and it's (as proven in 12) a consensus among strong players that resigning is the polite, reasonable thing to do.]
Why are you assuming that they resigned because it is polite? They could have very well resigned because it was in their best interest to do so, not because it was in the opponent's interest. From a human psychology standpoint, I would argue this is in fact way more likely. Also, you can't claim something is a consensus if you're drawing from such a small example.
15. [Expectation to resign is a social rule, not a FIDE rule, as I've already said it's not absolute. What do you mean inconsiderate? What's your absolute, logical definition of inconsiderate?]
I'm using my definition of inconsiderate. I'm showcasing the fact that I can use the exact same appeal you're using in your argument to arrive to the opposite conclusion. As for it being a social rule, you haven't proven this, and you won't be able to, and that's fine. I'm not asking you to do that.
14. [It's absurd that everyone here ties morality directly to legality.]
No one is doing that, and I don't understand why you think anyone is doing that.
15. [If this were the 1860's you would support slavery simply because it was legal. If someone said that owning slaves was bad, you would say 'They can do whatever they want, it's perfectly allowed and therefore justified'.]
No, I don't consider not resigning immoral, and the reasoning for that has nothing to do with it being legal or not. I think that considering it immoral is petty and unreasonable.
16. [Do you know why people play chess? It's for fun. F-U-N.]
Projecting your feelings here. Not everyone does it because it's fun. In fact, many do it because they know they're good at it and they want to win, and they're ambitious, and they may not particularly care too much about the game itself. Also, if this claim is true, then I can use it as a premise that makes your stance even more unreasonable. So I wouldn't want to claim this if I were you.
17. [Do you know what that is? Can you comprehend why someone might have fun playing a game of chess, and might not have fun being forced to play on in a position where virtually no thinking is required to win?]
Again, this isn't an argument. You say this as though people don't have reasons to not resign. If you think the only reason is to spite the opponent, then I question what planet do you live in.
18. [Expecting someone to be considerate for their opponent in a "competition" is still the same,...]
Also not an argument. If what you consider "considerate" is different from what I consider considerate, then this gives me further reason to do it based on what I consider considerate and not yours. Are you also the type of person that considers killing bacteria immoral? Because once again, calling that inconsiderate is petty at best in my opinion, and you're not doing a good job at changing that opinion. Also, what gives the quoatation marks? Is chess not a competition all of the sudden?
19. [with the exception that if something important is at stake, you might play on a little further just to make certain that you would lose. After that, the time-wasting argument still applies. It's still irrelevant, because my claim is true in general regardless of whether it's true in an important competition.]
It can't be true in general if it's entirely subjective.
20. [You're just inventing reasons to be an ass now. The only evidence I don't care about my opponent is that... I hold them to a standard of behavior?]
If someone is inconsiderate for not resigning just because their judgement disagrees with yours on a certain position, then I think saying that playing according to one's judgement and self interest makes you act obnoxious implying you don't care about your opponent is fair game.
21. [The idea being that even if everyone has their own definition of no reasonable chance, they'll still resign eventually. Do you not know how social rules work, or are you deliberately ignoring them?]
Social rules are still just subjective as they are. That's why they're social. But the worst part is that you haven't shown it is a social rule, and like I said, it is impossible for you to show it is. So using this claim which cannot be justified is a waste of time. The only reason you're claiming it's a social rule is because you've found a few people who agree with you. I could just as easily come up with just as many counterexamples if not more, assuming that I wanted to. I won't do it, because it isn't productive, since I probably don't need to remind you that drawing from small examples such that it's pretty much anecdotal isn't a good argument.
16. [Their argument relies on not caring at all about other people. She said that because she wasn't legally required to do something, she shouldn't do it.]
This isn't quite what she said. There you go again misrepresenting arguments.
17. [This shows a complete lack of understanding of basic social concepts as well as a lack of conscience. That's the definition. And I don't need to be a doctor to make an observation about someone.]
You need to be a doctor to make a reliable observation concerning a mental illness.
18. [Again, show me an example where I'm the one that started being nasty. Should be no problem for you, considering there are so many.]
I already gave you examples in my previous response, which I see you ignored. I'm not going to bother repeating myself if you're the one who's not willing to acknowledge it.
19. [You can't with any reasonability tell me this is your idea of respectful.]
You can't with any reasonability tell me that it's disrespectful. I don't know a single person on the Earth who considers that disrespectful. If you do, then I think youn might be delusional. I would recommend seeing a doctor, but no point in giving advice to someone who probably won't take it.
20. [You're a hypocritical piece of shit, and you have no idea what you're saying]
Hahahahahahahahaha
21. [Of course, you never explain what fallacy I don't understand, because you're argument is too weak to even present.]
No, I'm not explaining because I've already concluded you're not going to listen, and it will devolve into a whole issue of you declaring it irrelevant.
22. [It's still a rude thing to do, even if allowed.]
Basing an argument on something completely subjective isn't an argument to begin with, and you're not going to show it's a social rule just by showing that one grandmaster and maybe a few people in lichess somewhat agree with you. And if it's subjective, then there is nothing else to say. That's how it is here. The thing is, you keep saying it's subjective and admitting it, but then you keep presenting your argument as though it's objective. The argument has to be based on something objective. It has to some extent be axiomatic. That's how deductive arguments work. But it isn't objective, so you have no grounds for anything here.
23. [The only difference in structure between the murder argument and the resigning argument is in legality. I revise my murder statement to In a world where murder is legal, it's you're right to live how you want, including killing people. Therefore it's just fine to do.]
No. The distinction exists completely independent of the law. It's very simple. You're not hurting anyone by playing chess on your own self-interest in the endgame. This can be scientifically proven, as science has developed a paradigm for the study of pain. Admittedly, it isn't complete, but it's rigorous enough to draw some conclusions. You don't receive damage from playing with someone who isn't resigning against you. No one is. Unless you suffer a heart attack, but even then, that would beg the question of how one would know it was the opponent specifically who lead to the heart attack. On the other hand, killing people is terrible. Not only is it biologically not incentivized, but you're obviously hurting not only the murdered person, but also the families and friends involved, as well as the people who received some service by the victim, such as students or whatever may be the case. Plus, you're decreasing the chance of survival of the human species, even if this decrease is negligible. Also, one could even bring religion into this if one wanted to, but I'll not do that. However you look at it, they're absolutely not comparable, it's a false analogy and that's that. This is, unless you want to consider the idea that hurting someone shouldn't be an axiom for determining moral qualities of actions, in which case you may want to justify why should we consider otherwise.
24. [The way you hold "rights" on a pedestal, as if they're absolute truths and not just things we made up is, frankly, idiotic.]
Uh, you're the one who brought up rights, not me, I merely responded by saying my thoughts on rights and why that argument didn't help you.
25. [The same way you're acting as a self-authority on social standards by DARING to ARGUE about something you're not an EXPERT in.]
Oh, and are you an expert in ethics? Do you have a Ph.D on ethics and the philosophical foundations of morality? I would like to know. But no, I'm not acting like I'm an expert on social standards, you are. You're the one claiming that certain consensuses exist without evidence.
26. [You could say that how I argue my premises is illogical, but you'd need to actually provide evidence, and you're really not good at doing that.]
Says the person who claims to have taken statistics in college yet somehow doesn't understand the fact that drawing from extremely small samples doesn't account as a statistic, but as an anecdote.
27. [I will however, point out that calling me a liar instead of saying I'm wrong is an emotional appeal.]
Agreed, but I wasn't tryint to present an argument with that particular claim anyway.
28. [If it's not fun for you to play on in a losing position, it means your not playing chess for fun. Which means you truly are wasting your time playing, as there's no chance you could ever make a living from chess.]
This is just outright false, considering that I know of players who do make a living out of it.
29. [Maybe you're the one that doesn't have the 'mentality' to play chess.]
Pointing out the mentality exists doesn't imply it applies to me, actually. So you can take your head of your ass, now. I'm acknowledging the fact that the mentality exists because I know those people exists. That's perfectly fine. It doesn't mean anything about me. I haven't stated my reasons for why I play chess, so you should stop making those assumptions.
And to all that, you've still made 0% progress in persuading me. Your stance remains illogical as it always was.

I haven't met anyone so dogmatic as to try so hard to pass something so subjective as something objective.

Yes, describing him that way reminds me of Siegbert Tarrasch ... another loser.

hi

There's a big difference between blundering a piece and sacrificing one though!  The former is just a complete mistake which usually doesn't yield any compensation.  Sacrificing a piece obviously isn't a cause for resigning, unless, of course, as I often do, you mis-calculate the sacrifice and are really just losing a piece for no compensation.

@glamdring27  Yes, sometimes there's no compensation for losing a piece.  Still, I usually play on till it really is hopeless.  Players at my level often make mistakes.  And sometimes I'm able to win anyway a piece down.

Well maybe not "extremely" rare. The instance where I was lucky enough to find out what I thought was a mistake was in fact a good move was rare. But what about the countless times I'm not made aware?

In my case, I've played thousands of games, and every single game I've ever played there are things I dont see. Without exception. So for me it's not extremely rare. It's the rule. Not only the rule, the rule without any exceptions. Since it's happened in every game of chess I've ever played in my entire life, I guess it would be the complete and total opposite of extremely rare. But that's just me. It seems unlikely, but maybe there are chess players out there who see everything.

I'm not massively interested in happy accidents. I even feel a bit annoyed whenever I mate an opponent without realising it. Maybe I'm just a purist though.

I agree that there's obviously a difference. As for me, I've played in may tournaments, many of which are state or national championships, and I've played against very ranked high players, and it isn't exactly rare for me to blunder giving up my Queen and then being at considerable disadvantage only to win or draw the game afterwards. Not saying it's the norm, but it's not as rare as some people would claim here, in my experience. This is why arguments from experience are irrelevant too: everyone's experience is virtually isolated and doesn't represent anything about reality. Regardless, calling it extremely rare can be a stretch. I don't usually resign unless I see no point in continuing to play.

Resigning a game shows respect and honor to your opponent. I looked at Enderman’s rating. He does not deserve respect, lol! Play a game with me, Enderman? 😊

At your level, and to be honest mine too, most moves are accidents. I dont see everything, and you dont either. What we might think is a terrible move sometimes turns out great. What we think is a great move is sometimes a trap and loses the game. I think you have a long way to go to become a purist. So does Enderman. Sometimes we forget that it's just a game.

I strongly disagree. I will admit that most of my moves are probably poor, but I never make a move that is without some rationale, albeit that rationale may be misguided. Thus every game to me, win or lose, is a lesson in itself.

That's actually part of the point of not resigning. A person has multiple motivations to continue playing a game on a so-called theoretically lost position, not only because they still have a non-zero chance of winning, but for many reasons other than winning as well. Which is why the concept of reasonability is actually subjective in this context.

The aim is not to win, but to play the perfect game. If I make a blunder, I've failed to do that, so there's no point in continuing.

OK, we at least share the trait of playing mostly poor moves. But you said you never make move that is without some rationale. In your game against Knightvanvorst, what was the rationale for moving the pawn to f3? You resigned a couple moves later. Why did you choose that move over other moves?