THIS is why people don't resign

I think it's dumb to win by someone else's blunder. That's just an excuse so you can say "I won" and ignore the fact that you played a horrible game with lots of mistakes that you could have learned from.

 So, your opponent blundered, you win, and therefore you played a horrible game with lots of mistakes?  Whatever you say.  I'll just remember to play really sloppily agaisnt you so you'll refuse to win.

 Let's take a look at this example from Kasparov vs. Kramnik

I suppose Kasparov can't take any pride from his attack preceding Kramnik's error as it was only a blunder by Kramnik just as his flag fell that confirmed the match as lost for him?

What I obviously meant was that when you get into a lost position, there is a lesson to learn from that game. That means you made some mistake at some point. The lesson to be learned is certainly not "if I try to grind down my opponent maybe they will mess up and I can win."

I have played against players like that... the kind who will get completely outplayed and then use every resource to play out a totally lost position, they try to flag you, they try to set up cheap tricks, they try to get you into a dispute about rules like the clock settings or whatever. Usually they make a big stinking fuss when they lose as expected, too. They don't want to play good chess, they just want the point because it will pump up their silly ego. 5 minute blitz is one thing, but It can really kill the fun of, say, a 6-hour game. Especially if, for example, it's the first of two on the same day and you barely get a break between them just because they wouldn't just gracefully admit defeat.

I was in a lost position as I knew he could mate me in one but I played on and he missed it.Only resign if its absolutely hopeless.

This can happen, yes, but in a non-serious blitz game, why play on in a lost position by which you

(1) insuts your opponent,

(2) have no fun at all, and

(3) get a loss anyway in almost all cases except that rare occurrence when your opponent blunders as in the above examples,

if you can just start another game and win that one?

Perhaps I should start a new topic but I'll start by asking here.  Are there members who have taken a personal vow to never, ever resign?

I can think of one opponent I encountered on turn-based that seems to have adopted this attitude.  Maybe such an attitude was put into practice because of one experience, i.e. resigning only to find out later there was a resource available to win or draw.  Like the examples given here.

Hey, I'm all for taking personal vows if the intent is to improve one's life, character or condition.  But if a person decides to never, ever again to resign a chess game, then isn't that just a bit irrational?

An attitude like that reminds me of the quote from a scene in Monty Python & the Holy Grail.  "It's only a flesh wound!"

Yes, we all do it sometime.  But your friend does it "a lot".  That's where I'm going.  Why?  And the person who never gave up...  again I ask why?  

Computers are programmed to play til the end but we are human.  I think the expectation is that as humans we have some sense of reality.  When our opponent plays on in the face of overwhelming odds; it's only natural that we question the sanity of not resigning.  

Computers, i.e. chess engines don't have to explain themselves.  So, I'm looking beyond the euphemism of "no one ever won a game by resigning".  What motivates these stubborn people to persist in their behavior?

@ #28:

Of course white can draw, silly!

lol thanks.

Actually, white can draw even if there are 34 rooks without stalemate:

EDIT: White can even draw without stalemate with up to 42 rooks!

i know that it´s up to my oponent whetger he chooses to resing or not but i really don´t like winning this way i don´t feel happy. winnin this way doesn´t improve my chess.

 47 is the max I think.

 Nope.. Any thing over 42 will cause an instant checkmate or stalemate.  Besides, with 47 rooks, where do you find room for the two kings on a 48 square board?

48 square board? What happened to the other 16?

I think this game qualifies for the thread:

Nah, I've also played a couple of people who were so terrible that when I blundered my queen I could still play for a win.

Well said, OTB is a different world.  I remember one game I played over 20 years ago.  I dropped a piece early which led to a terrible position.  No hope as far as I could see & yes, I contemplated resigning.  Then my opponent quite proudly announced "I predict you're going to resign!"

Then my pride kicked in.  Just to refute his "prediction", I played on until he mated me.  Yes, he still won but at least I stole his claim to Nostrodomian power.  Funny thing about us humans.  We can be as stubborn as computers when motivated.  I may have talked myself into a corner from my previous opinion.  To invoke another comparison from the movies, there is the fight between Paul Newman & George Kennedy in Cool Hand Luke.  

So, play on!  It's not over til you're unconscious.