Opponent: I Should Resign on move 9 a piece down. Agree?

if he wanted you to resign so badly he was probably scared you were going to win lol, i've been called "gay" and "you little f*ck" after checkmating people before on here , probably similar type of psychology going on

A position is resignable exactly on the moment YOU think there is not any other result possible then you losing.  

Unless offcourse your opponent asked you to resign, then you should always play till the bitter end taking as much time as possible. Just for the fun off it.

hrb264 - I guess its an age thing:  If we were all 15 I guess this would seem normal.  Me personally, I would never antagonize a complete stranger over a chess game, just out the blue, insult them.  OTOH I should have just let it slide, as I guess I've spent 2 hours+ thinking about it now.  Did want to know how many people thought I should resign, am surprised its only about 5-10% thus far.

You are too Nice !!    I never Resign just shut-up and show me the damn mate !!

Not saying it is normal, I'm just saying if they're going around, saying that sort of stuff, they're the one with the problem. I'd never do that to anyone and I think the people who do that sort of thing are idiots tbh.

He was probably scared he was going to lose. That's what im saying lol, and obviously if anyone says something that abusive to you that's completely out of order

Kinda proves my point, you know what they say about majorities. 

I'd show you the "dang" mate yes, but then I'd also not ever play with you again because you wasted my time forcing me to checkmate you in an obviously losing position. =P

This is not the way to handle the situation - 'hoping that he slips up' is no strategy. The correct plan is to apply pressure, press press press, complicate, 'encourage' him to slip up. Even when your position is completely hopeless, like you've lost your queen for example, there are still strategies you can apply, such as an all-out sacrificial attack on his king (if you're down material and sliding to defeat anyway does it matter if you lose more material), stalemate, perpetual check, setting up a fortress. In your game's case the king/rook vs king/minor piece endings are mostly drawn. Note that there are still plans to make, principles to apply, challenges to be tackled, even in the most dire positions.

Chess is a game of constantly questioning your opponents thinking, where sometimes you agree with it (e.g my piece is threatened, I will retreat), or sometimes you disagree with it (e.g my piece is threatened, I will counter attack with gain of material). The same goes for his opinion of your decision to not resign on turn 11 - do you agree with him or not. There is nothing impolite about disagreeing (e.g Turn 11. Opponent: you should have resigned, You: I disagree because I have an idea to trap your queen, I have the two bishops, I have some space and I may be able to gain a development advantage because you have to spend time extricating your queen from the corner; and so 12...Ne7, and now your queen's escape square d5 is covered, your move)

As far as I'm concerned, the mark of a good player is his ability to finish off won positions consistantly (the slimmer the advantage that a player can finish off consistantly the more masterly the player). So test his skill, don't just capitulate. At the lower rating levels a lot of this testing should be going on - below the 2000's you're in the trenches fighting for your life, not involved in a gentlemans duel on the lawns of Buckingham Palace.

Dealing with blown positions is well worth learning because, let's face it, they happen all the time to most of us. I really don't think you can aspire to be a good player unless you at least have a go when things are looking bleak.

So, no, you should not have resigned on turn 11 and you were right to carry on in my opinion.

I agree with b1_.  Though I likely would have resigned there, at the level you're at it's totally legitimate to keep playing in the hopes your opponent will blunder.  He (probably) will.

In general, I figure you should resign when you will get nothing else out of the game.  Once he got the second queen, though, playing on is silly, unless he's got fifteen seconds left and you can see an opportunity for a swindle stalemate.

Generally you play on if you think you have a reasonable chance for a draw or win. If you believed you did, then there was nothing wrong with playing on, but if you just wanted to see how long it would take him to checkmate you, then you wasted his time.

Always play on, I never resign. One time, I came back with only a Knight against A Queen, and2 rooks. And i won, i kept forking his king and pieces! :)

b1_:

Some good points.

Your point that if he had politely suggested at move 11, that perhaps I should resign, or in post game analysis he had asked that, it would give me the opportunity to give my reasoning for playing on. But this also brings up the point that ideally there has to be a compelling specific reason to carry on.  If your position is really weak as well, in addtion to being down material, then I guess one shouldn't delude themselves with "anything can happen" reasoning.

Otoh, in a 25 minute game, what does one do - spend 3 minutes in the middle of the game,  deciding whether you really have a shot, or just play on.  Thats the thing - its just a 25 minute game, which heightens the probability that your opponent will just make a mistake.

As far as my position there, I don't think it was all that great, it wasn't that bad either - I had a lot of open files and diagonals and potential to bring pressure on his f2 square in front of his king which obviously I was going for subsequently, and keeping his rook pinned to f1 to protect it, at least that was my thinking.  Also I had a lot of advanced pawns. 

As far as positional strength far outweighing a severe piece deficit, consider the Lolli Attack (I just call it fried liver as its really its just the correct way to played Fried Liver.)  I did not know it, but in continuing lines of it, white sacrifices his *other* knight as well!  (So he's down either 4 or 5 points)  but it makes no difference, as his position is so incredidibly strong.

Here is this video on the Lolli I was studying yesterday. 
http://www.youtube.com/user/thechesswebsite#p/c/43/ZmF64w13ZU8

I used to play that all the time, and my rating got up above 1400 and I got bored with it and quit.  But I'm going back to it, but also will really devote time now to the Evan's Gambit, because it will often transpose into that, because more players today recognize the fried liver being thrown at them, and don't fall for it.

But back to your orginal point, that part of the fun of chess (as I took your comments) is the debate with your opponent over a position, I would agree with that.  THe real problem is on move 36,  only 2 or 3 moves after he got his second queen, he says, "Just Resign, You're wasting my time."  That sort of insulting remark out of the blue at the end of a hard fought game is just extremely hard to take.  I don't know why people feel that the commenting capability exists for them to heap abuse on their opponent.  My thinking it exists for the mutual edification of the players, for example as you suggested, discussing the game.  Why would someone make their first comment some insulting remark, when nothing has transpired between them and their oppoenent prior to that other than the game itself. I have to admit, it caught me off gaurd so much that I responded with a few choice words of my own.  But it indicates I think, that my opponent genuinely thought, it was an insult to him for me to play on after move 9.  So he had this simmering resentment evidently through the entire game, that me merely playing on was beyond the pale, just completely out of bounds - and that is just crazy.  And there are 1000's of people at chess.com that think that way, and they are just frankly deluded.

Now as far as online chess here (correspondence chess) at chess.com, that is a whole different story, when you have 3-5 days per move.  I've seen players delay and absolutely inevitable loss by three weeks.  There are no words to describe how inconsiderate that is.  But that is a completely different situation from live chess.  Why can't people make such a trivial distinction, I don't know.

Why would you resign?  He blundered by Bxf7, he's obviously a weak player.  

Where he checked my king at move 10?  That's a blunder?

Yes.

Care to elaborate?

Nope.

Correction to my previous post #38:

In the Lolli attack white ends up sacrificing both knights and is down 6 points, but according to that video, computer analysis says that white still has an overwhelming advantage.

I think it was okay to play on after going behind an Exchange and a pawn, but you played on too long. You should've resigned once you fell even further behind.