Never resign! Always fight till the end!

@rumo75 : Yes a wgm is definetlya good player :D

What I meant was just that in positions that are completly hopeless ( 4 queens down) its just stupid to play on in a long game. Surely in some positions there is some hope and then its definetly correct to play on

You should not resign, even in losing positions.  There is nothing unethical or rude about making your opponent earn their win.  And as you saw for yourself, even if your opponent supposedly has an "easy win", they often get over-confident and make mistakes, allowing a draw, or even completely reversing the tide of the game and allowing you a win.  Even in rated USCF OTB tournament games with slow time controls, I have several times won games where I was a full piece down (games that "I should have resigned").  I think people who encourage resigning are trying to guilt the player with the inferior position, saying he is "wasting time".  But don't let them cheat you of *your* time which is yours to use as you see fit.  Sometimes I think that these players (who say not resigning is rude) are simply a bit lazy or insecure about their chess technique.

Another reason not to resign in an inferior position is that most sub-expert players simply aren't experienced enough to accurately decide if their position is truly hopeless.  I made the mistake of resigning an OTB tournament game in which I later discovered that I had a forced win (even thought I had plenty of time to think).  That incident surely taught me a lesson.  When in doubt, play on.  If your opponent complains that you should resign because they have an easy win, ask them to "show me, don't tell me".

The most important reason not to resign is that most players still need to learn more about attacking techniques from stronger opponents, and also to practice defensive techniques.  Half of chess is defense -- how will a player improve if they give up too soon when things get tough?

I love people like OP... but its much better over the board...

When Im completly winning and he is playing on... I would also use all of my time remaining... staring into his teary eyes and relishing the domination. He is fighting in futility... scrambling hopelessly hoping... no ...begging! for a mistake from me... hahahaaa... He wants to dominate me? From a position of weakness? What is this ? now he wants my mercy after trying to wipe me off the board?

This needs to be punished with long stares and joyful eye contact.. while  the seconds count down... he hides his shame and averts his eyes submissively..

No... this ... "never give up" attitude .. is only possible behind a computer.. the cowards way.

I hate you guys, who always play on in completly lost positions!!!!!!! I wont play anymore on this site because of you!  Today I lost more than 100 rating points (2070 to 1960) in blitz and I was in the most games much material up. but my opponents always played on and went for some stupid tricks or tried to play on time. I HATE IT !  The reason is I completly outplayed them, I destroyed them but they played on and I made 1 stupid move and lost the game. I cant describe my feelings. This is so unfair and so unsportly, its unbelievable. Also those silly time players who cant play chess but move fast.  I hate you guys.

When we play with plenty of time on the clocks, play on in a lost position if you want.We will checkmate you.

When I face these guys... I just continue to play and leave him alone.

A player should resign when they feel that they are dead-lost AND that there is nothing more that can be learned from the game.

So if your opponent is a piece up AND you already know exactly how you would win if the board was reversed, you can resign.

"The reason is I completly outplayed them, I destroyed them but they played on and I made 1 stupid move and lost the game."

Hmm, so if I play a lot of nice positional moves then blunder a rook, I can just arbitrarily claim that the blunder of the rook was less important? The checkmating ability that comes from having an extra rook might say otherwise!

Just shows that if you spend too much time on the fancy moves, and get too proud of them, you may give your opponent easy (if "unaesthetic") ways for him to beat you. Giving your desperate opponent easy ways to beat you is not a way to beat him. Take those easy ways away from him, and he'll have nothing. But if you fail to do so you can only blame yourself.

Fancy moves only make sense to look for if they actually help you; if you are going to make a big blunder every game focusing on the smaller stuff is asking for bad results.

Maybe someone else has already said this but I don't agree with your comment after move 23 "a dead lost position". While white is certainly better positionally, he is only up a pawn. This is far from "dead lost" especially when you consider the ratings of the players.

I think that part of the beauty of good chess is how effective moves are in producing in a win.

It's like in football (soccer to you Americans) fancy footwork is really good when there is end product; that is, goals.

So a so-called ugly moves to despatch someone who hangs on in a hopeless position is ok by me.

Sometimes you don't get the option of resigning.

In a nutshell, beginners / weak players never resign.  Sorry, but if you never resign, you're probably a weak player.

When you find yourself resigning earlier and earlier, that's a sign you're getting better.

Say you never resign and you snap victory from the jaws of defeat once every 50 games.  Is that so wonderful?  Sure, you won this one game when you would have lost it, but those 49 other games you ended up losing anway.  If you had resigned each of those 50 games in a timely manner, you could have played a bunch of extra, meaningful games during that time.

There's a reason why masters and grandmasters resign, and are never checkmated.  Think about it.

THIS is why you should keep playing even when you are in a 'lost' position.

I think that blitz is a test of quick thinking and if you can think quickly enough to finish off a defensive player who likes to win on time in a desperate situation you're really,really good and can expect such a player to 'make your day'.

Such a win on time is a swindle and I like to see swindlers brought to justice by good chess.

How do you guys see it as a 'swindle'? When you play blitz, you accept that most games end on time. It is an agreed upon variable in the game.

It sounds almost as lame as people who want to dump stalemate because sometimes the losing player can force a stalemate and still get 1/2 a point.

I think it's a swindle because sometimes the player with the better chess brain loses to the person who moves quicker.

But if someone gets burned when they accept such time controls it's their responsibility.

When I play blitz I want to be prepared for being short of time.

I think people don't appreciate the distinction between what you know and what you do with it. No one would doubt you know this trick extremely well, and would see it if you felt like applying that knowledge. But that doesn't entitle you to a win. Because if you aren't paying attention, then that knowledge won't help.

Just because I understand the concept of a fork for example doesn't mean that any move my finger makes, no matter how unalert I am, will be intrinsically safe from forks. After all the board can't read my mind and know that I understand forks. I still have to look for the fork: I have to apply the knowledge.

"Sorry, but if you never resign, you're probably a weak player.

When you find yourself resigning earlier and earlier, that's a sign you're getting better."

Sure but the causal relationship's direction is important: It's not the resigning that makes you stronger, it's the stronger that makes you resign . Don't try to sneak in a few extra resigns just so that you feel like you understand chess; just actually understand chess lol.

To be honest I'm actually never "impressed" when a lower rated player resigns from a position just barely lost. It doesn't improve the quality of their play. If they want to look for reasons to lose hope, that's fine by me, but there isn't much skill going on there. I could resign in a slightly worse position quite easily (just push the resign button) but it wouldn't make me a super GM: it would make me a person who isn't willing to solve problems over the board.

The funny truth is that I resign less positions now, as a 2000 USCF, than I did at 1600 USCF. In fact when I was 1600 I thought any pawn up position would be easily winning, and would freak out when it's actually really hard to win. So much for me trying to think I understood the game! There I was, thinking I was all special with my concept of "converting tiny advantages," yet in reality taking it totally out of context.