Why do many lower rated players drag out lost games

This is something i've often noticed. While a higher rated player usually resigns when the games is lost, a lower rated player often plays on even when a queen, a rook and about six bishops down. I myself used to do this and i'm not particularly proud of it. Live and learn. 

While you're always gonna get some people who play on in hopeless positions, i'm curious as to why rating seems to be such a correlating factor to this. 

i think they hope for a stalemate or a blunder to gain an advantage which probably happens alot d to the low rating

The thing is though, their opponent's rating doesn't tend to matter much/at all to these people. For example, if I'm playing in an open ended rating "daily" tournament here on chess.com and I achieve a completely won position in multiple of my games. Which games might I just maybe manage to mess up? The game(s) against players my rating or above, who would probably be playing for legitimate tricks if they continued, or the games against people rated 500+ points below me, who would be playing on literally just in case I timeout (yet they usually still play fast?!?)? Which games will almost certainly get resigned and which games are more like a coin toss? As a young man it used to annoy me. Now, I just find the whole thing funny. Idiots will be idiots. It is what it is.

Playing on for legitimate tricks is something i do. This is one of my best ones, where i conned my opponent into a stalemate trap. I was totally losing, but i played on while that possibility of stalemate remained. Nothing wrong with that.

However when there's no tricks left, that's the time to resign. 

When you wrote the OP, you didn't sound like you were talking about being two pawns down in a R+K endgame. Why is the thread about that now? I don't think I said anything to change the topic. When I said legitimate tricks, I meant things like winning the Queen back, that you're down, because your opponent missed a fork. Not an endgame down two pawns with only a few moves left in it anyway.

I was talking about any sort of hopeless position. Being two pawns down in a king vs king endgame (unless they're doubled pawns) is equally as hopeless as being 20 points down in the middlegame.

I see alot of lower rated players dragging out games in either of those positions. 

For me its about training defens. It´s kind of fun also to see how long I can stay. 

I think more players should tipper over their King.

Rating has nothing to do with it.

The "You resign now" phrase should only apply to games that are played with no clocks and no time limits.

In online chess, you always checkmate your opponent or you risk letting the clock ultimately determine the outcome of the game.

You're using the word hopeless wrong, for a start. How can it be hopeless? You literally just showed us a game that you tricked your way into a draw.

Playing on two pawns down deep into an endgame, isn't going to waste much time or effort for either player. Playing on a Queen down in the middle game, is.

If I went around telling beginners that there was approximately a 1% chance that they could become a GM if they studied and/or played chess for around 10 hours a week, for the next 10 years, how many of them do you think would try for that? If I went around telling beginners that there was approximately a 1% chance that they could become a GM if they studied chess for at least 3 hours every day and played chess for at least another 3 hours every day and paid a coach to help them and tried hard to do everything the coach asked of them, all for the next 10 years, how many of them do you think would try for that?

Also, your examples of "20 points" and "a queen, a rook and about six bishops" are both much worse than two pawns in an endgame. Your opponent made one mistake in your example game, to cost himself the win. If you're down 20 points, it's going to cost you a hell of a lot more than a single bad move to cost you the win lol.

You'll never be a good player.

There's four factors.

The first is that when you are low rated, your opponent is low rated, so it is very possible that your opponent blunders enough that you win.

The second is that often times it takes skill to know when you are in a hopeless position vs. a losing but possibly a win. It's also why low raters often take some time to realize they are in mate in 1 or 2. 

The third is that lower raters enjoy playing to checkmate. They want to play the entire game. Higher raters have done that enough that it's no longer enjoyable. 

And lastly, when you are low rater, your opponent may not even have the skill to checkmate you.  You'd be surprised how far people can get without being able to do basic checkmates. Sometimes it's mindblowing. 

That's kind of sad, and makes me wonder if higher rating levels makes playing chess less enjoyable as a whole.

If climbing the ratings ladder means that ultimately the game becomes less enjoyable, then I believe I will try to stay at my current rating level, only play unrated games, or do something else for enjoyment.

You don't need to waste the time of hundreds (or even thousands?) of people, to learn how to checkmate. If you're a beginner playing another beginner, play on and almost nobody will criticise you for that. If you play games against people 500+ points higher rated than you and do the same, you're just wasting you and somebody else's life. You will lose the game and you won't learn anything meaningful in the process. Just resign and start another game. It's a much better use of your time.

I can tell you that i definitely enjoy the game more now than when i was a noob don't fear climbing that rating ladder!  

However when it comes to hopeless positions, where i have no hope of saving the game with any tricks, i'd rather leave that game and invest my time elsewhere, aka. in other games. So it's a case of not wanting to waste my time, which i don't like doing. 

this shouldnt be so hard to figure out. most beginners are lower rated and they dont have enough experience to tell them when they should resign. also, many instructors that work with beginners tell them to always play on and never resign. the reason for this recommendation is that they might learn something new from the dominating, higher ranked player at a point after which a more experienced player would typically resign. but in the end, it is players right to play on or resign. so if you find yourself in a dominating position and your opponent wont resign, quit whining and finish him off.

Same thing happened to me, and I’m low rated so maybe that’s the cause?

In many ways, it's more enjoyable once you get a higher rating. You know all the different openings, can make complex plans and do all sorts of tricks. 

Newbies games are decided basically by who can push wood the safest, and the least safe wood pusher loses.