if you are about to lose badly, do you resign or continue?

my thought is to continue playing--there's always a chance my opponent may make a mistake, or maybe i'll get a draw. some have told me it's polite to resign when it's obvious i can't win...opinions anyone...?

If you are playing someone <1800, you'd be surprised how many chances they'll hand you to come right back in the game so, as a rule, you should NOT resign at that level.

For higher ratings, it's more of a personal preference - some people resign as soon as they are worse, others will play out games till checkmate no matter what, most will resign when they think their position is "hopeless" (as judged by them) and there are some unwritten etiquette rules (e.g. allowing a particularly beautiful checkmate, etc.)

i've always liked the idea of 'allowing a particularly beautiful checkmate' instead of resigning (secretly hoping i'm not allowing it). and, as you said, how many chances they'll hand to me...

Depends whether or not there is still play in the position. I've blundered more than one completely winning position in time trouble because I allowed my opponent's unnecessary counter-play.

This is game is an example of how not resigning can sometimes pay off

https://www.chess.com/live/game/4136864478

The stronger you are in chess--the more likely you will resign in such situations'

Never resign. People miss mate in 1's. Even the stupidest mistakes can be nullified. CarlosTenango vs SanDeity - https://www.chess.com/live/game/4142937821

I think, it is depend on board situation. If you are lose many pieces, but still have a good position to create some direct attack, keep continue the game. But, if there are nothing you can do again, and you are very sure you'll be lose, it is better to resign, analyze the game, find your mistake and play another game. Do not wasting time.

Didn't Anand survive a bunch of mates in one against Grischuk and Ivanchuk or something?

It can be on the situation of pieces,positions etc.

I wouldnt resign unless i have completely analysed the position and found no possible wins fot me

I'll resign if I'm stupidly down on material, if there is a small imbalance I play on int he hope that my opponent will make the same kind of mistake I did

I dont believe in losing badly. There is losing, ties, or winning. The only three possibilities are 1, 1/2, or 0. There are no more and no less points for winning in 9 moves vs. winning in 99 moves. It's all the same. Since losing "badly" means the game is still going there is no reason to resign. Whether you badly lost or barely lost, the score is the same.

i like this and i agree. it my heart of hearts i'm looking for that one more chance...thank you!

I never resign.  I promise to play a full game and do.  

Well, it depends on just how bad things are and how strong my opponents are. I have resigned a few games (not many) and gamely fought on in others. I really don't know the split between wins and losses in those games; but I do know I lost more than a few.

I have had opponents do the same, resign or fight on. I think in only one instance did I feel the resignation was too soon; in the other games I thought the resignations were appropriate.

For me it comes down to complexity of the position.  If I drop a pawn I'm not going to resign.  If on the other hand I drop a piece and there's no complexity left (no way to generate threats, no possible king attack, very clear position), I will resign.  

I have won many games in which I was dead lost in.  I basically learned that from Josh Waitzkin chessmaster lectures where he talks about downward spirals.  The idea is you should try to play your best and not mentally resign even if you are playing on, no matter how painful it is to play on.  

However I think it is incredibly rude for someone to play on when they are *completely* bust, and its just a simple matter of time until the game is over.  Basically, if you think a 1000 rated player could win it, just resign

the only problem with this thinking is, the ratings are sometimes deceptive. a fellow of reasonable talent, played well within his circle, was challenged by an obviously better player. he accepted just because, why not?, and lost. made a foolish move in another game he was playing, he lost. his rating was now below 1000. he's a better player than his current rating, but unless you know him, you have no way of knowing that. i play for the game, at the time, not for the rating. i play those with 2500 rating or with 500 rating. doesn't matter to me.

((to be fair, it's easier to carry this attitude if you're doing well. on my bad days, i can be less charitable. still i try to play because it's chess and fun and educational)).

Politeness is irrelevant.  Resign if you want to, play on if you want to.  If your opponent is offended by either choice then tough, maybe they don't have the stomach for chess.

Low rated players make so many mistakes though that you can never be sure they won't.  Question is whether you are that bothered or not.  Personally my time is a valuable resource.  If I could play another game of chess from the equal starting position or play on in a position I am almost certain to lose in, just sitting there hoping my opponent is too stupid to win I'd rather just play a new game.  No single game is that important to me that it really matters if I win by a fluke or not.

Sometimes if i see a forced mate, i'll move quickly and give my opponent the opportunity to carry it out.

On this site players rated less than 1500 virtually never resign in bullet.

Even facing an end game against 2 rooks or queens with a bare king.

This is disrespectful and mean spirited. Move on and play another game.