Isin't resigning being a sore loser?

It is not clear how the Steinitz - Van Bardeleden ended.  It is clear that Van Bardeleden was upset with the actions of the spectaters at Hastings and filed a formal protest.  According to some accounts, he gave Steintitz a note indicating that he was protesting the spectators and not Steinitz.  

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/steinitzvonbardeleben.html

I think this is about maturity & experience.  When I played for my school chess team, going all the way to mate was important for me & if my opponent resigned, I felt cheated.  But that was forty years ago & now I feel exactly the same if I win by resignation or checkmate.

In one of my earliest games on this site, an opponent fought on doggedly until the end, even though his position was utterly lost. I remember thinking at the time that it was very honourable of him but I also wondered why he'd bothered.

When you know the game's up, don't waste your opponent's time & resign-that's what I always do & anyway isn't it more dignified?
 Of course if you're playing a child then that's another matter.....

You can resign unless you set up a trap to make a perpaetual check against the opponent's king and your opponent bought it see my game http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=61744062

I prefer the Shakespearian view in Much Ado About Nothing.  And, the quote:  He doeth protest too much.  I always resign in preference to "pushing wood"

we can all agree if someone has a lone kind vs all the opponent pices it is completely lost and one should resign.

but I still think there is positions that appear to be losing but still has a element of change.... being down a rook but the opponents rook isn't active so he is in fact playing without it. in this case are you really behind a rook? and if you pressure your opponent so he doens't have time to develop it.

people have their reason for playing on and you have to respect that as well. if someone doesn't resign I play very fast proving my point that I am winning. maybe he will find out next time there is no point in trying in the situation he got.

Well in the game I posted, I really did well in the opening and I know it, but I blundered a lot in the middle game, after being down tons of material I was going to resign but then if you look starting move 24 , I sacrificed a lot of material just to get that draw. It actually depends if you think you can at least draw, but if not, it is proper to resign.

"we can all agree if someone has a lone kind vs all the opponent pices it is completely lost and one should resign."

I don't agree. I feel I am in absolutely no position to determine what anyone "should" do when it comes to this.

haha, that reminds me of an online chess game, I had a lone king against a queen and several pieces and won on time.

With a lone king, you can't win, only draw.

See, Abhishek understands. The more queens on the board, the better the stalemate chances -- a motto that has proven fundamental in my chess career. But how do you win on time with a lone king? That's a draw on time.

If there is no chance of draw or victory if your opponent plays to their usual strength, or if you know beyond reasonable doubt that your opponent can see the line to mate, it is not bad form to resign. If you know your opponent looks down on resigners maybe you can play it to mate. I usually find this is more common with amateur players.

I believe people who continue playing is more honest. If the opponent play with an engine, then a blunder from an honest player will become an irritation to their cheating rival. It mean that the cheater will know that he have the winning line, and the honest will play in the hope that the cheater blunder.

If the player is really very good, and honest, he will know that he had challenged a too weaker player, and he will have an opportunity to show off his skills to inspire his also honest opponent.

People who become annoyed are self centered, they feel they just want to walk over their opponent, and make as if they do not exist.They think that life is just plain sailing. One can alway's ignore the blunder, and a skilled player can even make an equal blunder if he see that the opponent made a mistake. After all, it is rare to play a honest player, and if you have the honour of playing one, i believe you can sit back and relax, and just measure your skills to another human, and not a brick wall that never give slack.

Anyhow, if you do meet a grandmaster, he will have you so quickly tied up, that you want to resign anyhow, some would  want to quit playing forever...

I don't think it is a good manner to resign just because you have a better insight in the line at hand. There are many surprises, and no one is just a pushover.

if you are annoyed, why challenge a weaker player. If he have the same rating than you, then it is you who you play against. If the opponent is stronger, why would you want him to resign? He will resign, because it is humiliating for him, because a stronger player, cannot loose against a weaker one. The weaker player will not be as forgiving to pardon mistakes from a stronger player, because he will never get such an opportunity, and it is actually why a weaker player will remain weak.

Chess without deep thought, is just a waste of time, its like going through life without gaining something for the soul.

one can also resign if you choose to play black, is white not the stronger line to play?

to resighn early, can be an indication of your insight in a game, in such a way that your oponent have not even picked up on. 

Or you can resign if you see your oponent had missed an oportunity to mate you. Do you really want to win after you know that your oponent had blundered?

All such questions...

Then you can resign at a point in the game of climax...which if you add anything to the game, would just mess it up for the imagination....but let us leave that for the greatest of great players.

People give up too easily.  Stay and fight your hardest, being behind will force you to learn more about positions, piece potential and give you a good look at end game play; and because the other person feels super confident, with a little ingenuity you might be able to get them in a trap.

  Also if the game is so far gone, it should only take a few moves to mate, and this is a learning oppertunity as well for leader, to visualize new mates.

However if a person is not trying their best and just wasting time, resign.  Resign to be polite, not to cry.  If you think you have a chance go ahead and give it your best.

There are few absolutes, if any, in life and chess.  A resignation wears many faces.  In a few cases the face is that of a sore loser.  Most often it is the face of a good sport who symbolicly reaches out with a congratulatory handshake and a 'gg' attitude.  I am of the latter.  I'd rather get on to the next match than plod along 'pushing wood'.  For those of you who delight in  winning a won game by figuring out the mate.......play the computer provided by chess.com.....it won't resign and will give you the pleasure of making all the moves you want to get to mate.

no

Yes, I agree. However, resigning is not, and should not, be considered "bad sportsmanship" 

Many resign early because they do not what to waste other people's time.  That is being considerate.  I have seen some loosing badly who just continue and waste my time.

I feel like my ego us crushed whenever I resign, I prefer to play it to a mate. If I do, the loss doesn't hurt as much, in fact, I feel like I can do anything. Resigning is simply running away from defeat, facing it gives you the bravery to face hard challenges head on rather than giving up when the going gets tough.