Is it polite to resign when hope is lost?

I read on wikipedia that it's considered poor etiquette to keep playing when you're truly in a hopeless position. What do you think? Is it more polite to resign or keep playing?

Online chess is a little different than over the board chess because the opponent is often unknown and unseen, making "manners" optional to many players.

Time pressure can be an equalizing factor in many positions, leading many to play on in what would be considered objectively lost positions, were the lack of time not a factor. 

In general, however, it is polite to resign not only when the position is truly hopeless but also when you have enough respect for your opponent's skill that you concede that the position gives little or no chance to achieve a draw.

Among beginners, there is a certain joy in being able to play to mate and some consider resigning to be almost insulting. However, among more experienced players, the thrill of the inevitable checkmate lessens in over the board games where the game may have gone on for many hours or in correspondence games where the game may have gone on for months or years.

It's not such a question of being impolite. More a case of the losing player not wasting any more of his time. I'm not bothered if my opponent keeps playing...

You sir/madam have summed it up very well.

If you've never played your opponent before there's no reason why you shouldn't force them to prove they actually know how to win.  There's no such thing as polite or not polite.  People who get offended by someone not resigning are too sensitive to be playing chess in the first place.

Nothings over until it's over! didn't you see ever Star Trek the wrath of Khan? Kirk's ship was helpless crippled game over he had one good move and he played it Khan was totally surprised and confused when the shields started lowering.

Just cause your in a losing position doesn't mean your going to lose if you have a last minute swindle game saving move or you know and see something the other guy doesn't :)

The question was whether or not it is polite to resign when the position is "hopeless".  

"Hopeless" would be defined as a position that even you or Captain Kirk would admit has no hope.  

You may always continue to play on in such positions, out of inertia, or for spite, or for hate's sake, but you wouldn't consider it rude to resign, would you?

Well, I just wanted to know what various chess players thought, so thanks for the input, everyone.

In response to the last sencence written by notmtwain:I don't know if that question was for me, but maybe it's rude to resign under some circumstances, like when a player resigns after losing a only a bishop.

If they lost only a bishop and resigned, maybe they hated their position or maybe something occured IRL and they had to leave.  We just don't know and it doesn't really matter.  I just hate when they sit there and let time run hoping you'll resign.  Slightly less annoying is offering a draw in a losing position, but half the time they'll just resign after you refuse. 

Another reason a person may play on in a hopeless position is because they want to practice their endgame and just work on improving position.  See how long they can delay the inevitable and hope their opponent makes a mistake. 

On my profile I have a statement that says I never resign.   I also almost always use "chat" to tell that to my opponents when I get significantly behind, though I sometimes don't when the game is not long.

When I am way ahead and my opponent's record indicates they might resign I will sometimes tell them, as politely as possible, that I hope they won't resign.  I never want an opponent to resign.   

If your opponent has played an unbelievable and fantastic game, you let him/her play it out to the end. Let him finish his elegant artwork. For example, So - Nakamura in the Sinqufield cup 2015. 

I completely agree. I try not to resign when my opponent will definitely win in only a few moves. I think it's rude to play the game out until the very last moves, and then just resign. However, as long as my opponent is not a beginner, I'll resign when there is no way to avoid a losing endgame. It's just a waste of time to go on for another 20 moves, knowing that your opponent isn't dumb enough to hang his rook. If you want to continue to play in such a situation, that's perfectly fine, but try to make your moves quickly. Your opponent will obviously be annoyed if you wait three days to make the only legal move.

Then there's blitz chess. I never resign from blitz unless my opponent is about to win and has a decent amount of time. I have actually won some positionally lost blitz games simply because my opponent couldn't make his moves fast enough.

Some people have a lot of free time I guess!

yes

Well duh....Would you like it if you were a queen up, and your oponent didn't resign? Of course only when hope is COMPLETELY lost. So if your in the middlegame, and down a pawn, you can play on, its not that bad...

I'm quite happy playing a Queen up for as long as it takes.  Often a challenge is nice in chess, but other times it is just fun to completely obliterate your opponent.

Some people consider it impolite/rude to not resign when they think you should (even if you're not so sure).  Others consider it impolite to resign prematurely, thus depriving them of the pleasure of checkmating you.  Some will criticize you no matter what you do.  So the only solution is to sit perfectly still, and don't ever do anything.  

Seriously though, if you're not sure whether to resign, then don't.  Make the opponent prove the win.  You might actually learn something valuable about technique.  Don't rely on advice from your opponent (this is a war game).  If they get irrate, that's their problem.  Why be a slave to arbitrary poorly-defined social norms about a board game?!

It's a judgment call, of course.  But I for one think it's silly not to resign (from any game, really, chess notwithstanding) if it's abundantly clear that your loss is inevitable.  Assuming a competent opponent (which seems likely, given that he put you in this predicament in the first place), and no relevant time factors, there's no purposeful motivation to continue to play, whereas it's presumably courteous to acknowledge your defeat and bow out.

To those purporting otherwise, I propose the following scenario: you're playing an untimed game.  Your opponent is significantly ahead in both position and material.  You refuse to resign.  Rather than go for the checkmate, he then proceeds to slowly and meticulously hunt down each and every one of your remaining pieces and capture them.  Still you refuse to resign.  Then, leaving you with nothing but your king, he begins to casually promote each of his remaining pawns (to knights, just for laughs).

Still not going to resign?  Why not?  What are you hoping to prove?  Crossing your fingers for that 0.0007% chance that your opponent will blunder into a draw?  And even if he does, what have you really accomplished?

Then if it's not abundantly clear that the loss is inevitable, the OP should play on, correct?  If unsure whether you should resign, then don't.  Of course more experienced players have a more accurate of idea about what "hopeless" means, but the OP's question is almost always asked by beginners and novices.  And most coaches advise such players to "play it out" when unsure.

Regarding the idea of "punishing" a non-resigning opponent by capturing all of his/her pieces (instead of trying for a quick checkmate), this is even more rude than the non-resigner's "stubborness" (which might be not be intentional, but instead lack of experience).  If someone prolonged the game to "punish" me for prolonging the game, I would "punish" them back by not resigning.  And I would enjoy the looks on the spectators' faces as they wondered why my opponent keeps missing mate-in-1 over and over again.  And if the opponent accidentally stalemates me, then who got served?  See how all this ego-tripping can back-fire.  If someone has a lost position and is dragging out the game, the mature approach is to find the quickest checkmate, just like you're supposed to do in any chess game.

EDIT: I realize the OP specified "when hope is lost", but my long-winded argument was meant to get the OP to consider that accurately judging a position to be truly hopeless sometimes requires skill (especially in pawn endgames).  So, since the OP's rating implies a novice, don't rush to judgement.  Wouldn't hurt to play another move or two (if the opponet's time is so important, then what the hell are they doing playing chess?!).

I will play until I feel I can no longer win or draw, either on time or material. I once had an opponent in otb that huffed and puffed the entire game because he won a pawn early and I wouldnt resign. I enjoyed his frustration all the more.