Resign in a lost position, please!

Chess4001, if the positions you are playing against are so hopeless, and you can play on autopilot, why does it frustrate you so much?

A piece up position is usually a winning one, but not if you're not alert. If it takes alertness to win one of those positions, and your opponent wants to make sure you are... well, it looks like you're still going to have to concentrate for a little while. The game, after all, isn't over.

Resignation is a convenience option for the player in pain to end his misery; your opponent's resignation has absolutely nothing to do with your feelings about it, so stop acting as if it does. However, feel free to apply your feelings about resignations for your own resignations. :)

agreed I always play my games to the end. Always a chance of survival

It really depends on the nature of the position. Sometimes in a "lost position" you can find a perpetual check, or even a stale mate. There have been times where I have blundered a piece away early on, and my opponent got "too comfortable" and I have come back to win or draw the game.

I am on the same page as Frankdawg, he and I are right. I have found wins in lost positions as well.

Lol. People just waste my time after they blundered their queens and have absolutely no chances of winning. Anyway it doesn't change my opinion. I will block people who do...

I haven't. There is no practical chance of saving a lost position. You are confusing 'lost' with 'losing'. If a position is 'lost', it means that for all intents and purposes, the game is over. If a position is 'losing', it means that with perfect play by both sides, the losing side will get mated.

That's just a grammatical issue. Americans don't care about that

Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do. 

Inigo Montoya: What's that? 

Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change. 

Surprised nobody mentioned GM Tartakower's quote yet.

What can i say... i just laugh at those players, sometimes resign so they win, sometimes lose on time on purpose... cause they are just fooling themselves. Rating is an estimate on how well u play. If u win 15 games on time in a row in a lost position and went up 100 points doesnt mean u are better at playing, but well whatever makes them happy!

Just...no.  Resigning is a matter of preference.  It completely depends on the position.  If the game has been chock-full of blunders, why would you resign?  Chances are good that your opponent will drop a piece or lose his/her cool, and then you're back in it.  If the game has been even and my opponent has played well throughout, then I'll resign.

However, if a finish requires a lot of technique, then I'll keep playing just so I learn how to convert it.

In general though, I resign if I think I could beat Kasparov from the other side :)

This one was painful.  I could whine and say "MY OPPONENT SHOULD HAVE RESIGNED", wah, wah, wah.  And yeah, I sure did.  But I sure as hell learned to be more careful.

You can learn a lot from playing out your mistakes... I know!

Mottsauce I looked at your game and indeed you were material up, but black had still chances to counter attack. I never resign games when I am still able to counterattack, even though being many pieces down. Whenever my counterattack has been quenced, I resign, but if I can still make threats I will continue. Take for example this interesting and my my most economical mate I achieved once in a 5 minute game:

 Resigning "lost" endgames requires a modium of knowledge, that a fair number of players on Chess.com sorely lack.

It's quite possible to have the knowledge that a position is lost (or "losing" for those who prefer), but to play it out anyway because of the practical difficulties in winning some theoretically winning positions.

In other words, people don't necessarily play on because they don't know how bad their position is, something that complainers assume anyway.

Agreed.  You can be up "4-5 points" but still lose if major pieces remain on the board.

With Queens still on the board, the threat of mate (from "out of the blue") always remains a possibility.  Regardless of how "winning" the position might appear.

But "insisting they resign" is for control freaks, and apparently the OP.  Why bother?

Exactly, people are just too impatient. i dont care about the level of play, granted there are times when you should resign, but those are not very often.

if you are in a won position, you always will win.Chess is about patience, surprise, and careful play. Even down a piece you can still win.

The only situation in which i would complain in is when you got a full queen and a piece up in the endgame.

I don't really see what you mean. Hopeless is hopeless. I you can't tell winning from losing from drawn, then you shouldn't resign, but experienced players know that and will know when to resign. I don't really blame a beginner that wants to play on, but an experienced player should know when the game is over, without a chance for a swindle.

"...I don't really blame a beginner that wants to play on, but an experienced player should know when the game is over."

But that's the thing: the determination of when the game is over changes depending on your point of view. It's all a matter how you feel the position. The only objective definition of "over" is when one side is in checkmate. Aside from that, everyone feels differently about when they should resign. You resign when you want to; not when the majority of players at your level think you should -- that's not how it works.