Yes, being completely lost and dragging the game is petty, since it's obviously deliberate. I would report them all.

I know my views on this are wrong according to most people but I feel that resigning is actually rude because you are quiting in the middle of the game.

Perfect example. Nice outcome!

I don't see how striving for an accurate move would be "counter-productive" to chess development. If I strive to find a move in a losing position that is "slightly less bad" than the rest of my alternatives, I am analyzing with detail as I would any position.

Now, you could argue it isn't "ideally productive," but the term counter-productive suggests that you are doing the opposite of what you would do in a normal situation, which I don't agree with. In any situation, I am weighing my options for the best move, although my motivation may vary.

Although I disagree with the word choice, I do think that positions vary in their instructive-ness, so choosing when to resign can be an economical decision. For instance if you are up two sets to one against Roger Federer, but down in the fourth set 5-1, you are probably better off saving your energy for the fifth set (essentially giving up trying to save the fourth), because it's easier to win a set at 0-0, and if you do indeed fail to win the fourth set, the loss of energy will probably make you perform worse in the fifth set than you otherwise would have.

As a player still trying to learn to get better, end games, even when im on the wrong end of it can help me. 

I am a quick player though as I have the app on my phone and play once i get a notification, so I wouldn't drag out for 3 days anyway. I also push for a stalemate, which again is more practice in reading a board and making the right moves. 

 "and what they might learn would be far smaller than what they would learn by resigning and doing something else in chess."

I by no means disagree with this, although it depends, but I am indeed ok with taking an extra bit of time in a game even if it's not maximally instructive.

Don't we all do this? I know when I play online I take more risks than I would OTB, because my results matter less online than they do OTB. In OTB I forget about the most graceful chess and simply ask myself what is the best chance for me to win. In some cases it might mean playing an inferior move simply for psychological reasons, or maybe it will mean me playing a move that I can better handle than another move, even if it's objectively inferior. I look for ways to maximize my chances of winning OTB, with little to no regard of how instructive it is.

As usual sports analogys aren't useful because when losing in sports your ability to score is not diminished.

I think this may be true though.  Dropping a piece for nothing your play will be trying desperate ideas to generate play.  This is not normal thinking in chess.  Even in very sharp positions you have to consider the ability of your opponent to sac back, get rid of the tension, and enter different endgames for example.  A piece down you're just desperate.

I know you are just saying "you" as a general thing (as I do all the time), but it is a little awkward here because you are telling me what my mood is when I'm down a piece when that actually isn't what my mentality is

I usually play piece down positions as houdini would -- usually just try to pick the best of all the bad moves, only giving into the temptation for psychological warfare at very specific moments -- 90% of the time it just makes the win even easier for the opponent, although 10% of the time it may be useful :)

Besides, psychological situations can happen any time, in worse, equal positions. Occasionally even in better ones, although it's more about you trying to neutralize your opponent's psychological warfare.

Resignation Etiquette???

Say loudly, "I was better the whole time, just that one mistake... unbelievable" then stand up and walk out of the playing hall.

"As usual sports analogys aren't useful because when losing in sports your ability to score is not diminished."

True, it's not diminished, but it shares the same idea of saving energy. You might have a 15% chance to win the 4th set if you tried extremely hard and played the match of your life in the next 30 minutes, but even then you probably still won't save it and your fatigue will carry over soon after (in chess, this would be the next round or two). I think this is in fact very consistent with the idea of energy conservation in chess.

Well, psychology aside, I meant the types of plans you'll consider.  As you said against houdini it can be easy to win a piece up if the position is calm.  Human vs human the types of moves you need to make involve not falling into passivity.  Passivity a piece down is just ridiculous.  And you won't be considering any transitions (open to mid, mid to end for example) just survival.

I don't think I'd immediately resign if I dropped a piece for nothing.  I'd play a few moves (or sit awhile) to let the shock wear off to make sure I'm thinking rationally.  But I think there's some truth to ozzie's post.

Sports analogy.  I'm often reminded of a Hank Aaron quote when reading 'looby's posts:

"80% of hitting is guessing what the pitcher is going to throw next.  The other 20% is just execution."

One time, vs a 2100 who felt much stronger, I dropped a piece entering the endgame.  In the time pressure (less than 10 minutes on my clock) and shock I honestly didn't see his path to victory, I may have a fortress I thought.

Well it was actually quite simple, he waltzed his king to the center and I finally realized it was trivially lost, so then I resigned right away.

So I'm not talking about resigning out of principal.  You have to consider the board, sure.  And if you don't see it, you don't see it, play on.  But I do think the character of the game changes.  And in a multi-day tourney it's good to rest.

Well, if the passive move is objectively better than the active move, then the passive move is usually better. The thing is passive moves tend to be objectively worse than active moves anyway.
A case where the active move would be objectively worse would be like a one time trap that if the opponent sees, he will win right away. The passive defense might require a technical process for it to be broken down, and this can often be more difficult to deal with because you have to continue thinking for many more moves. Sometimes traps are good, but only in really specific circumstances that are hard to generalize.

"And you won't be considering any transitions (open to mid, mid to end for example) just survival."

Sure you would. Some technical positions are easier to win for the extra piece than others. You can still build up slight advantages down a piece; it will probably not save the game, but it may make the game harder to win. If you get say a better pawn structure by outplaying your opponent, it'll be harder for him to win the game. If you get an advantage in space, even harder, and so on. So not all piece down positions are the same.

In Grandmaster play if one side has an interesting mate, they will sometime play it out for the benefit of the spectators.  I don't think it's really a question of etiquette although the loser has to be considered a good sport for doing it.

Post #75: Yeah, that's basically what I would do. Just be as sure that you will lose as you are comfortable with. For me, I don't want to just be 95% sure I will lose; I want to be over 99% sure, so I will often play things out even if it seems like it's over (which it usually is).

I try to be fairly cold-blooded with my chess -- just like the machine, haha.

Well that's true.  If an endgame like that does exist, then of course you can play on.  In ozzies example I'm thinking early-mid middlgegame, plenty of pawns and play left on the board.  The positions where you're a piece down and can offer a technically difficult defense I think are rare and mainly found in books.  In practice a passive defense I think would fail 99 out of 100 times.

Yes active moves are best anyway... but look how houdini plays a rook down.  It's pathetic.  I have much better chances against houdini at rook odds than against a human GM at rook odds.  You have to play somewhat speculatively or the win is just too easy.

"As you said against houdini it can be easy to win a piece up if the position is calm."

It seems you are hearing what you want to hear, because my opinion is closer to the opposite of this. If it's like an endgame with bishop and 5 pawns vs 5 pawns, sure; if it's out of the opening or in a queenless middlegame, not really, even if the position is calm.

This is what I was refering to.

Wow, now I see you were saying 90% of the time speculative play only makes it easier.  I disagree.  I'd say 90% of the time passive defense makes it easier.  You have to unbalance the position and generate something to avoid a loss when down massive amounts of material.