i have fought my way back and won on more than one ocassion. Should i have resigned first? I don't think so. Unless it is totally obvious i can not win i will fight to the end!
I cant stand people who dont resign -.-
Sort:
I hope that anyone who agrees we should automatically resign our losing positions would be playing their best friend, then they not resign their losing position, first just to tick you off and then I hope you make a mistake so they win.... everytime you play them.... you sore winners...
It depends on how important the time is to you. To me, an extra 10% chance of saving a game is worth, well, quite a bit of time, because the intensity of the fight is one of the most engaging things about the game.
Yes maybe the OP's glass is half empty..
The title should read "I respect those who resign"
[COMMENT DELETED]
(Note from kohai - I deleted this game as it messed up the entire page layout)
lol, indeed 
Stalemate instead
Never give up the ship! Fight, fight, fight to the end. "Go not gently into that good night, rage, rage against the losing of the light!"
YOU SHOW him. yOU RESIGN IN PROTEST !
It's polite to resign at the right time. When is the right time? When YOU feel that the game is hopeless. Lots of things might give you hope, like time, stalemate, and the fact that your opponent is a dunderhead like you. The game given is a real poor example of non-masters not resigning,especially in a speed game, so quit complaining. But to drag on an easily won but long game when time is not a factor is just rude, IMHO. This is how the vast majority of weekend swiss players handle it.
Some caveats. I might play out a mate in 2, say, because it is a less painful way of losing than hitting the resign button, and it's a quick way to go. And I admit that Sometimes I'll resign because I'm disgusted with the game and I just want to get on to the next game.
Testing....
If I have more time than my opponent, I usually don't resign even if in a slightly worse position than my opponent, to see if he/she runs out of time.
MJ4H wrote:
Chess would be very simple if we got to decide when our opponents resigned.
Great answer. To the threadstarter, sorry i am too lazy to look at your game. Your opponent didnt resign, so you had to use technique to finish the game and possibly get a checkmate? In other words you played a game of chess. But you knew that, right?
play to the bitter end , make your opponent win in my opinion .
With the Owls third off the bottom they must have the same philosophy
In my opinion, resigning is almost as if to childishly (if that's a word) toss the board in a fit of anger. It's almost disrespect as if to say, "I can't beat you so I'm going home !". It is also my opinion that your endgame is lacking. Why else would you suggest this thread ? You probably play well until the end when your game most likely suffers and you've at times have let games slip away because your opponent "didn't resign". Hey, I'm not that good of a chess player myself. My rating blows. The highest I've ever been is mid 1400. I've been on a two-year hiatus and just now getting back into it having lost my first three games. In fact, I was mated in 4. That's horrible ! But I do enjoy expressing my opinion... LOL :)
Larry Hagman has just resigned 
Tartakover’s ironic aphorism “No one has yet managed to win a game by resigning” sums up the matter.