Isin't resigning being a sore loser?

Resign when:

1) You believe your position is lost,
2) You believe your opponent knows it's lost and,
3) You believe your opponent can convert the win without difficulty.

I think most players do this even if they use different words to describe it.  I also think if you continue to play after these conditions are met that you're being stubborn.

Anyway, when you're new then don't resign because it's likely anything can still happen i.e. you likely don't believe #3.

Aaaaaah

From my experience i like to gain something when i lose. Find something i need to work on. More than likely do i hunt for something to work on when i start winning. If i get blown out in a situation .... that is a serious problem. I hope it is due to being distracted when online or i am tired. If it is not that i have to shut everything  down!

If your losing by material and position to a much higher rated player ....and have other games where they are close. Why not resign. Focus on winning them with more time to think your moves out instead of looking at a game you are not going to win and will get nothing from studying but a headache. More you may dout your abilities

The layng down of the king is what is missing to show that a player want to resign.

Personally, I feel playing on a hopeless position to be rather painless, as if you play bad moves you don't feel very punished as you were probably going to lose anyway. I might lose about 10 minutes of my life making sure my opponent won the position, or making sure the position was "actually lost" and not "most likely lost." The feeling of obligation to resign is probably what makes some people do the latter; it doesn't have a huge impact on their results, but it may or may not have some.

Usually it's instructive anyway. I don't resign anymore when I lose a piece out of the opening; it's often instructive to watch my opponent, even a strong opponent, struggle to prove that extra piece actually helps him win the game. It often leads to a technical endgame grind that can teach me about proper technique, how to make sure I will always win a piece up. Because I have lost games where I was a piece up for nothing.

Maybe most people consider playing on down a queen in an endgame or something "extreme"; or maybe two queens; maybe 3 queens and 2 knights. I say it's all relative: have any opinion you want, as long as you can justify it with your own reasoning. If you're playing on out of spite, that's bad indeed, that you literally enjoy the act of wasting your opponent's time. But otherwise, even the most lost position, I don't care if you play it out.

If you blunder big, like a queen sac, it is up to you if you want to resign or not. Certainly if your opponent is a good player who will absolutely have no trouble winning then it is very polite to resign right there. However, it is ok to play on.

Here is what isn't ok in that situation. If you let the clock run down using almost all your time except a couple of minutes and then resign. It is ok to use all your time if you actively spend it on figuring out what to play. One can only wonder however what you could be thinking about. Your position is lost and here you are trying to get a draw or what is your aim?

If I sac a piece(bishop or knight) in a long game I do play on a bit longer if the position is in flames but when he consolidates the position and it is clear that I can't get a draw I will resign.

As a bonus, if its OTB, when you resign early your opponent is more likely to want to analyze the game with you. If the opponent is much better than you, you should definitely do this and try to learn as much as possible.

i personally find it quite annoying playing against people who don't resign after being a queen down or in a position they cannot win from it means that i have to waste my time beating them when i have already won

A lot also depends on the situation.  You want to play out a mate in 3, go ahead.

It's not like the following game, resignable at move 21, and he plays it on.  Notice that I specifically didn't even try to find the quickest win, I just make sure White has no life in the position, and if he is going to play on, play on in a hopeless position with no tricks available, no traps, no nothing:

http://www.charlottechess.com/games2/1123.htm

HOWEVER, I have also dealt with complete a$$holes.  My opponent once had 37 minutes left to make the first time control, about to lose a rook.  He ended up resigning, when he was down to 30 seconds (and that is without making a single move!).  What an a$$.  You could eat a meal in that time!

blasterdragon: You have secured an extremely high chance of you winning, but no, you have not, quite, already won.

Feel free to post some of your tournament games Elubas, where you were that much material down and played on

Being down a Queen ok play on but down a Queen, add a piece and pawn(s). That is not good, that plants the seed for trash talk as the the player winning wants to know under what conditions will my opponent now resign so he can go and do it for him/her to resign.

Trash talk becomes a factor. I have seen some really nice players change over time here. Opponents did not resign and now at the point where they trash talk before the game even starts. I even recently did it a little..... never said anything directly to the opponent. It was clear that the game was won and it was getting worse each move. This was a Vote Chess game. None of us could believe our eyes how horrible the moves were in the game. In Vote Chess a couple moves could last a month! At 3 dayss a move 6 moves by each side in a month. 

I've got some on chess.com in particular. Including an ongoing one

But of course, yes, most of my posts are annoying devil's advocate.

I meant USCF but ok.

Well i gained something. Stop looking for a resign as the trend is going that way! I just will take my time and look for the mate! If it is 3 days a move i will take the 2+ dayse even if the move is obvious, not going to wear myself down looking for mate in a won game! Just avoid the mistake and spend that extra time on game that is close that i can win that needs my attention!

Well, I did play on down three juicy pawns (used to be one, but got worse) in a rook ending, 3 pawns vs none, a rook and king on each side, against an NM. And yes, he was immature about it, pushed his pawns extra slowly (meaning, he would push the pawn for a couple of seconds before it finally moved to the next square). I'm like, you can do that all you want, I'm milking a .0031% chance of not losing the game instead of a 0% chance. In all seriousness, I do believe the chance of him messing up was above zero, just not much above zero.

So I really don't care how it makes the other side feel, no matter how strong they are. I make the most practical decision for myself, and don't rely on how others may react to determine what is the right choice for me.

If that does not work! Well then snatch everything!

If my does not resign then which is outrageous

well then i figure my opponent has no shame.

I have yet to see a player have all their pieces snatched or allow their opponent to have 2 or more Queens on the board at the same time not resign! That do not want that game posted on that person profile or in a group! 

"your opponent is much less likely to want to go over the game with you,"

Although if he is thinking rationally like me, the chances of him going over the game aren't affected . Unless of course he gets too tired!

"to the jerk who played out a dead lost position for an additional hour."

Doesn't sound like someone who is all about people feeling free to do things

I for one like to see games end in checkmate rather than just "1-0". Therefore, I resign if I lose a ton of material and the rest of the game is boring for both sides, but if I'm caught in a mating net, I just play it out. (correspondence games are exceptions) People on chess.com tend to resign just a few moves from checkmate.

I mean, what's the point? Checkmating is fun!

This has be helpful as i am more prepared for players that do not wish to resign. I found a way to force a resign that has been working when given a chance to apply it in a game. Just have to work harder to get into that position!

You simply continued to play chess knowing there was no net loss. The denying of the post mortem is the irrational part, as it doesn't consider the above.

But if we are going to assume that the latter is common, then I would agree with you: It may be wise to assume your opponent will get annoyed at something that he has no reason to be