Why people refuse to resign?

I refused to resign and win by time, other time I got a stalemate draw due of the 50 moves rule.

If you are winning that much, convert the position. It’s good practise for you and your opponent. There’s no reason to complain if the position is as lost for them as you describe, as it should be an easy win.

and why would you care if someone else chooses to waste their own time? 

OP is only 1400 rapid, at your rating yes it would be a waste of time because you don't get to >2000 if you can't convert a winning position every time but that isn't the case at OP's rating (especially in 10 minute games where there's time pressure). 

I don't get why you would resign ever, just disrespectful. In the same vein i don't get why you would want people to resign. The end game when you dominate is the funnest part. Your great strategic mind allows you to now curb stomp your opposition and you say nah i don't want to have fun lets just end it here.

It's the same with other strategy games, i just spend like 2+ hours fighting you just for you to rage quit when im close to winning. That's just plain unfun or when people play eu4 offline and quit like halfway through, after the halfway point you got immense power and you aren't even willing to exercise it?

Kinda seems like strategy gamers only want to win and don't just want to have fun.

(Ignore my profile, i only play offline since i suck at chess.)

Way 👏 to 👏 go 👏 bringing 👏 back 👏 dead 👏 forums 👏

Because you can report someone quitting. Playing until the end is a mindset. And a mistake or stalemate is always possible isn't it?

Yeah, i don't understand why people want to 'win' or stalemate only in the off chance of a giant blunder. It means you didn't really win, but the other just ruined it. I play chess because it's a beautiful game, and i like to play on the best of my level. I don't enjoy wins where someone just gives away their queen for example, because that is not what chess is about for me. It's even more annoying when they refuse to give up after that, hoping for the off chance of a stalemate or time running out. The game is already played, how do they still enjoy it?

If you win by checkmate you get more elo than resign

Also to praxtixe endgames

What i sont understand is why people getbso mad because of it you press play on a 10 minute chess game you automatically accwpt the fact that it might come down to 20 minutes of play time. Its like people who plays sheppard mate but then resign when it fails because they dont want to play more. Its not fair to people who actually want to play chess.

The other day i played a winning game where i was up 20 points of material and i asked the guy why he didnt resign. He said he just wanted to play chess because its fun. And know i think i agree with him

They wait for you to blunder.

Under 1000, even many games under 1500 elo, they're decided by who blunders

Even 2000s can blunder although it's relatively rare. You really aren't good in chess until at least 2000 elo, and OK until at least 1500 elo

How would you know that, sitting at under 1000 elo?

1500 is considered advanced

Not ok

From other chess players.

Other influencers have shown chess games of about these ratings and found many blunders, missed tactics etc.

Nelson Lopez (NM), "6 Tips To Get Past 1000 - The most common chess mistakes - How to get better at chess for beginners": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5YNDGSYLOg

Out of 100 players, 41 made blunders, which is a huge number.

It's not just my opinion, other much stronger chess players have analysed 1000 elo games and found (in hindsight) very easy blunders and missed tactics, often. But in a game it's much harder.

So actually <1000 elo we're pretty crap at chess, <1500 still kinda bad but at least we start knowing a bit of what we're doing