Never resign! Always fight till the end!

That's a fun but sad game :)

And again, we know she totally understands a simple mate like that. It goes to show, you have to apply the knowledge, and your mind has to be present to do so.

"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."

Depends on what you want I guess. Some might think they could have learned more; others maybe had a thrill of perseverence paying off, looking for the best moves even with so much motivation not to. That's a cool skill in many ways. But again I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer to this question you pose: it'll depend on the person.

I would imagine that, improvement wise, not taking out time to study chess is about a million times worse than playing for some extra time in a tournament game, even a large amount of tournament games.

If you enjoy a game that you lose, you win because you have fun and resigning is just a way of saying the game is over in your opinion.I think that we don't have to fight on to the bitter end if we are feeling too much frustration and getting too little reward.

Anyhoo when I'm playing my game of chess I'm in charge and I can wimp out anytime I choose.

Yes, I think both attitudes deserve respect. People want different things out of the game. If a person wants to resign, no problem. If they get something out of playing on (who knows what -- it doesn't matter, unless it's spite or something), again, no problem.

Its a psychological swindle because the player with the won position has lost all motivation and interest in the game (they are already switched off and thinking about other things)...

If its a world championship match or for some stakes... ok play on till your death... but when its just a hobby/fun game and the opponent is winning and has reasonable amount of time to finish you off..  just resign.

OTB its not illegal to stare or smile at your opponent..

so when someone is playing on in a dead position I send them winks ;) and make sure to drag it out as long as possible ... and keep rubbing it in with smiles :)

After the game they usually want an immediate rematch... these kinds of people I always decline.

"but when its just a hobby/fun game and the opponent is winning and has reasonable amount of time to finish you off..  just resign."

I totally get this point. The problem is that people may have different ideas of fun. For example, maybe some people really get something out of being competitive, engaging themselves in the activity really strongly (Maybe think about it like someone working out and sweating, to get that feeling that you really pushed yourself to the limit). Whereas others are ok with a more laid back approach, just trying to play some interesting moves. But both may be having fun in their own ways, and both could be perfectly ok with a loss.

If I know I have a chance, I play the game out. However, I believe it is a matter of good sportmanship and respect for your opponent not to drag out an obvious loss. 

blunders happen all the time in end games so keep playing see if he see

the obvious or not !

Always try to play to the end hoping on a stalemate although it rarely happens need to learn how to force a stalemate

Till_98 wrote:

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.

Don't blame us. Blame yourself for keep on thinking you won. And those weren't cheap tricks, they were your own mistakes and blunders when you counted your chickens before they hatched.

Till_98 wrote:

An example for a winning game where my opponent tried a very cheap trick and succeded:

You call it a cheap trick? It's just a blunder you made. How can it be a trick when he is rated over 2000? He knows that fighting spirit is more important, so don't count your chickens before they hatch.

The reason why he did g6 because that is his "last resort", hoping to bank rank mate you. That's the fighting spirit I like.

it is definetly a cheap trick... Its just something i hate on the blitz games on this site. You are completly winning, you dominated the whole game, they could have resigned much earlier and then they get the chance to Do one cheap trick and because of the time they succeed with it. Its just very unfair and i can guarantee you, when you will lose a game like this, you will definetly be pissed off!

http://www.chess.com/blog/BSRULZ/never-resign--fight-till-end

Post#52: I usually accept my fate, actually. If I lose a winning position on time (and I have), then I wasn't able to exploit my winning position -- it's my fault. It's possible I would be mad, but only at myself, not at my opponent.

Till_98 wrote:

it is definetly a cheap trick... Its just something i hate on the blitz games on this site. You are completly winning, you dominated the whole game, they could have resigned much earlier and then they get the chance to Do one cheap trick and because of the time they succeed with it. Its just very unfair and i can guarantee you, when you will lose a game like this, you will definetly be pissed off!

Yes, that means you have to learn to not celebrate a real victory.

Forced mate-in-3 is a "cheap trick"? No, there were no "tricks" (whatever that means). The OP simply blundered by promoting the wrong pawn. Of course the OP's opponent should play the checkmate -- this is the object of the game (should we really expect someone to ignore mate once they see it?). If the OP wants to be angry, he should be angry only with himself for blundering.