Please don't play chess like this, it kills the fun.

OK - hoping to help here, but not sure what your beef is (maybe time was low?).  You were up a piece, and from move 34 on there were no N moves, but supported the B to move to control the queening square.  Anything, even Rf1 to prevent Bf4 would have been enough technique to win.   You sac'd the N to get the P to b8, but it wasn't enough. 

I'd argue that until you (and me) get to the point where we can consistently win a won game, and not drop pieces unnecessarily, this is exactly the kind of loss that can guide you to what you should be studying - simple forking tactics included. 

I'm in the same boat frequently, and it stinks to lose a won game, but hard to fault your opponent here...

Finding the win is a cinch in that position - if you've got the time. I simply have to calculate the knight paths, which is about the only tricky part, and then I coordinate my pieces.

*My opponent knows that. It's completely different from a complex situation where one believes they might still be able to win.

This is plain boring, to be frank. I essentially played myself the entire game, and then when my opponent has nothing to lose they hop the knight around or whatever other piece trying to run the clock down.

It doesn't really matter, I suppose. Simply learn to rise against the odds, as you put it RealGojira.

And yes, my opponent just might be an excited individual somewhere out there simply happy to have won the game. It is a game after all. But it's still killing the fun. That's why less and less people are playing live, and are moving on to daily chess.

Or playing unrated so they don't lose rating because of a premove they couldn't cancel on mobile using the chrome browser. 

I thought it was a blitz or bullet game, but looks like it was a 30 min game.  You had about 12 min on your clock when you won the piece, and about 5 min when you resigned.  That's starting to look like time enough to see 1 or 2 movers.  You talked about N forks, but there really weren't any fatal N moves in your game...you lost the e-pawn, but that was Black playing chess, looking for counterplay...

People aren't going to resign every time they hang a piece.  It's fun and gratifying to win a won position on the board - actually grind it out to mate if the opponent won't quit.  When this becomes second nature (like I'm sure it is for R v K or even KP v K for you), you'll look forward to the chance to show off technique.  For now, I'd spend time with a tactics book (or puzzles here) until you're not losing many games you should win.

Yeah, I don't really see what the issue is either. It's not like your opponent dragged out the game in ridiculous fashion for many moves, only for you to finally mouseslip away the win. That I could understand. 

Of course at World Championship level it was resignable at some point but in online rapid at 1500 level Black is never going to resign, and of course he's going to try to find a trick. 

Best to just chalk it up as one of those that got away and not dwell on it too much imo.

Wait I don't get it? Why did you resign?

At move 26 he should take with the bishop, not with the rook. All low rated players have that neurotic need to give a check, even if theres no reason to do it.

Chin up. It sucks to lose but trying to blame the opponent for "killing the fun" will never work. He has all the right to play with his pieces the way he sees best and it's up to you to beat him regardless of the style he plays with. And he is in no way responsible to play the type of chess that you enjoy. As far as I can see he played fair and square, and of course he will try to look for forks or tricks with a knight whenever a chance. As should you. Especially if down material and struggling with a defense. Tactics are a crucial part of the game, and if you're struggling with knight forks, perhaps it's time to get back to the training grounds and really focus on those tactics.

You sort of remind me of Sheldon Cooper in that profile pic, @JamesColeman.

To everybody who participated in this thread:

I am not lazy to grind out the game and exact the win. Tricky situations require time, time I did not have. From the beginning of the game my opponent was looking to simplify the position, which would have probably lead to a draw. I wanted a certain win, not to gamble on who's going to blunder first.

I didn't resign because I had lost, I was simply annoyed at that point, as well as low on time. I'm not sure what analysis would reveal, but the materially speaking it looked drawn.

I'm reminded of a movie scene:

You were the one who traded queens, so blaming him for just simplifying seems a bit funny to me. There are barely such things as certain draws at sub 2000 rating level and this game for example was never really a "certain draw".

Look. Chess is war. 64 squares, 32 pieces and the goal is to checkmate the king. Clock is a crucial factor and time management important part of the game. As long as you play legal moves without an outside assistance (engine) you're allowed to use every trick, tactic or style to reach your goal (including moving fast, so your opponent feels pressured with time). Perhaps he was willing to trade down material because he was confident that he will beat you in the endgame? And according to this game he would've been right to think so. If you wanted a more strategic position, you need to arrange it! You had the white pieces and the initiative, so to a great extent you get to decide how the game develops. If you are unable to get the type of positions that you are comfortable in, you need to practice your openings.

I'm sorry but the way you are writing really sounds like you're a sore loser. Sometimes in chess you win, sometimes you lose. Losing is never fun, but complaining about it does nothing for you. Take responsibility in your own game, focus on your own mistakes and stop blaming your opponents if they don't play the way you enjoy. It's up to you to shape the battlefield to your liking and your opponent will try to do exactly the same. That's the beauty of chess.

I'm completely bemused what the complaint is here.  It's simply a game of chess with some ups and downs like many many played on the site.  Was your opponent supposed to resign at some point?  I don't really see why, at 1500 level.

When I read the title I was expecting to see some game in a really closed position with someone just shuffling pieces around for 50 moves behind a pawn wall and a 0.00 computer eval, until you got bored and made a rash move that they then got the better of.  But this was just a normal game of chess!

I always see so much talk of 'improving', as though it is everyone's aim on a site like this.  A lot of people just enjoy playing for the fun of the game, at whatever level they have settled at.  I've been at roughly the same level for 8 years, basically since my rating settled down to fairly accurately represent where I'm at.  It's also probably roughly the same level I was at 25 years ago when I quit playing after high school before returning online after a 15+ year break.  I'm totally fine with that.  I do some puzzles from time to time for fun, but put no concerted effort into improving, but the chess games themselves I just play because I enjoy chess.

You should go into every game you play expecting to have to give mate to win though.  It's good discipline.  A player resigning is just a short cut that they can decide to end the game early if they wish, but since we were talking about learning, an opponent not resigning is an ideal opportunity to practice and learn more for closing out winning positions.

Well, you've sure taken it upon yourself to defend my opponent, @nexim, haven't you?

I was expecting the "chess is war" phrase soon enough. You must find this post quite relatable. Going as far as to reduce my endgame play, my opening play, my midgame play, and yet maintaining that tinge of neutrality.

...strangely enough, even though I seem to have outplayed my opponent in every phase of the game. You must have your reasons, though - I'm sure.

I was mulling over this "chess is war" business the other day, and I have to disagree. Chess is not a war, it's a game. And I'm not trying to be a smart mouth about it. You don't wait around for mistakes to happen in war, you play to win before the horns even begin or you may as well be rolling the dice.

Sure enough the guy didn't cheat, nobody said he did, but it does kill the fun playing that way. I'd have a better time playing myself. And yes I was somewhat annoyed creating this thread, it is discussing a frustrating matter after all.

I kinda get where you're coming from now. Someone on my friend list plays just like that. Mindlessly chucking knights around the place and hoping for blunders. He wins a game here and there but it's not the way to improve in the long run.

Correspondence chess is the time-control you're looking for. If chess could ever compare to war then let's discuss the strategies and resources we find in daily chess.

Rapid is more akin to rounds in a UFC cage fight. Even by that bar I still win, seeing how it's all about your scoring if you avoided the definite K.O.