isn't resignation a form of disrespect

"It is a clear statement that you believe your opponent is a dolt who cannot convert a clear win."

Just speaking for myself, I've played on positions without thinking my opponent was incapable at all -- I've even played till mate against master level players at times. That didn't make not resigning any riskier though, since if I lost as expected, it's still 0 points.

"On the contrary...having a piece up in the right position is identical to placing the third X and then drawing a line through it.  The rest of the game means nothing."

I don't see how it's identical. In Tic-Tac-Toe, if I remember correctly, the rules necessitate that the game will result in a win (even if played out all the way) -- the rules don't say anything about being up a piece in chess. The rest of the game does matter since some ways of playing a piece up will result in a win, others in a loss. It may not be interesting to some, but that's another matter.

So yeah I would agree to play on a Tic-Tac-Toe game where someone gets three is pointless, but I disagree that the analogy truly holds. No, I don't consider it "close enough."

NOT resigning a clearly lost position is a sign of disrespect.

"That way you get to play more games with the GM in the limited time you have, which is certainly more valuable, and more fun, too."

Sure, there are practical reasons to resign. But no, I don't view resigning as a philosophical/moral issue, controversial as that may be.

"For the 1 extra win in a 1000 you could get this way, you will be far better served by resigning and playing another game, or analyzing the game you just lost with your opponent, etc. because you can actually learn something thereby."

Maybe some just like the fullness of all those games. A weird view when taken to the extreme, sure, but that's something a person might be interested in when playing chess. It takes out the other person's time, true, but to complain about rules you signed up to means you're willing the game to be something that it isn't, which in my opinion is a little arrogant. Even if 99% of chess players prefer resigning in some hypothetical position x (and thus you may be used to opponents resigning to you in "obviously winning" positions like this), that doesn't necessarily make your view more priviliged. It reminds me of people who complain about losing on time in games where they voluntarily sign up to play with no increment.

It's strange, and very hypothetical, but I wouldn't call it stupid at all. There's some interesting thought that goes into it. I don't necessarily think it's a good idea, but I can see his point.

and his point is what?

Probably something like this: In positions where the win is obvious to both players, they won't have to worry about playing them out since the game will end automatically. Which, I would think, is something that pro-resigners would want to happen, excepting a pretty mate perhaps.

That's not my view, that was your straw man of my view ;).  Nowhere did I say that I expect my opponents to resign in certain situations...in fact, I said pretty much the opposite.

Tic tac toe is actually a draw every time when played correctly by both players.

some ways of playing a piece up will result in a win, others in a loss.

...which is different from saying "having a piece up in the right position" is a win somehow?  The implications are the same.

Your rating would indicate that you should understand when a won game is completely won barring a staggeringly boneheaded blunder by your opponent...so, if you persist, it is much like the rock-paper-scissors analogy...you are purposefully waiting for your opponent to keel over to keep you from losing, not to keep any actually viable chances you have to win yourself.  An important distinction.

If I have lost any chances to win for myself, and my opponent's chances to lose via a mistake fall well below the threshold of the reasonable given their rating and the position at hand, then playing on is basically like saying "I am depending on you to be an idiot".

Well then I'm not sure what you mean by having a piece up in the "right position" :) How many positions exist where one side is up a piece and the game will end in mate no matter how the stronger side plays?

If I'm up two queens but I just move my king back and forth I won't win. The end of the game does matter, whether it's a resignation from my opponent, or the relevant moves played that turn the potential win into an actual win.

"Nowhere did I say that I expect my opponents to resign in certain situations...in fact, I said pretty much the opposite."

Well then we probably agree for the most part. Most people use your points to make arguments about the "ethics" of resigning so I anticipated that.

"Tic tac toe is actually a draw every time when played correctly by both players."

I guess I don't like to restate things (which is probably my fault) but I was only talking about cases in which one side got three in a row, as in your example.

I think that professional chess players have better things to do than play every game to mate.

"then playing on is basically like saying "I am depending on you to be an idiot"."

Perhaps, but that isn't the same thing as saying that it is likely that they will play like an idiot. There is no penalty for the playing on to not work; you get zero points regardless of how you lose. When there is no risk, I don't need a high likelihood for a swindle (the belief of which is argued to be the "disrespect" to the opponent) to make a case for playing on.

I mean, I depend on a GM acting like an idiot in order for me to beat them in a game of chess. I don't think that's going to happen though.

Just played a game my opponent let me pin his queen to his king with my bishop, in the opening. Not passing judgement for the blunder, mind you, but was slieghtly miffed he continued playing on, a queen down. Was thinking "They usually resign now...."

As I hinted somewhere in my long essays here, it's a tempting fallacy to take what you're expected to seeing, and use that to make a moral judgment where something unexpected happens. For most people to resign in that situation, varelse, means that most people want to resign in that situation, not that a moral law has been created to resign in that position. If 1% of people don't resign in that position, well then 1% of the time you'll be playing it. There isn't much else to say.

This exactly is the reason people even resign in the first place.

I mean, this could go on for twenty moves at least:

...but do you really need to play it out?

I was playing someone who's rating was <1200, withing 15 moves he/she was considerably down pieces, a player with a higher rating would have resigned. But the game was played another 18 moves until checkmate. 

I didn't mind it at all. He/she was just intent on learning/practicing the game with a higher level player. Or was just a person who liked seeing things to the very end.

I don't get all these complaints I've seen in the forum.

It all seems very whiny or hissy fitty to me.

Some even going so far as to want the rules of the game changed -

Chess with its rules has been played for over 800 years. Wanting to change the rules because they are "unhappy" when a game isn't going their way is laughable.

The ability to move two spaces, and the related ability to capture en passant, were only introduced in 15th-century Europe. So chess may have been played 800 years but not with the same rule all the time.

I wonder what people said about the rule change in the 15th century.

Luckily, you and your friends are the arbiters of nothing but your own little world.