Resignation

 In a losing position, would you ever resign and under what circumstances?

In a totally winning position, where you guarantee a win, do you expect the other person to resign?

If your opponent resigned in a losing position, what would you think of them (i.e. would you appreciate an opponent who has conceded defeat, or would you think of them as a quitter? Would you applaud an opponent who has dragged the game on and on, or would you find them irritating?)?

How many games have you won in a hopelessly lost position?

How many games have you lost in a winning situation?

Would you ever resign?

Depends on a lot of factors.

i) The rating/strength of my opponent => usually indicates how competent his winning-a-won-game technique is.

ii) His time control situation vs. mine (Blitz vs. slow games? with a increment/delay?) 

iii) If this is a tourney, how much of a rest-break do I get before the next game.

iv)  The position on the board. This ties closely with i) as the margin of error in terms of "losing" positions can vary from "down a rook pawn" to "down an exchange" to down full pieces.  If the margin of error that my opponent has is low enough (with respect to my assessment of his technique). then I'll play on.

For example, If I play a 1600-1800 player who is up an exchange (with no compensation to speak of) or a pawn (probably +1.0 to +1.8 on most computer's eval. scores?), while I am theoretically lost,  I certainly don't trust his technique to be accurate enough to close out the game with lethal precision.

Chess games are won by cashing in on mistakes made.... Won games don't automatically win themselves! :)

Based on the above, I'd find no fault for my opponent not resigning for the same reasons.  

At competitive play, there's always gamesmanship, ego and attitude and if you are training to play this game in a cool + calm + collected manner, you'll probably leave emotional baggage (irritation, annoyance etc.) at the door before you sit down.

It's just silly to let my opponent get to me using off-the-board tactics or feel arrogant/snarly that he dares defy the Gods of chess and not resign.  That's a personality weakness that no amount of chess training will ever correct!

Well Said !!  

If my opponent has demonstrated all game long that he will make rational decisions then I resign when in a hopeless position. If there is hope I won't resign. I expect the same. It saves time. If they wont resign then we just play to their inevitable demise.

I resign when there is nothing no hope, and no cheap tricks I can use. I think its bad sportmanship not resigning such a position, especially against much higher rated opponents.

But the clock is a important factor too.

If the opponent keeps moving, and you can't check mate him before your time is gone, it's a valid win!

And besides that, you can always blunder! God for him, bad for you.

If I find myself in a losing position, I'll resign, especially if I think my opponent knows what they're doing.  If I'm in a winning position, I don't care if my opponent resigns or lets me checkmate him.  In fact, I'd prefer to play out a game all the way to checkmate rather than having my opponent resign one or two moves from checkmate.

I don't consider anyone who resigns a quitter, since it's common practice to resign in chess if the game is lost.  Nor do I find it irritating to play a game out.  I know a lot of players get irritated over opponents who refuse to resign (as judged by a lot of posts here on chess.com), but I don't care if they do or not.

I don't know how many games I've won in a lost position, but I have managed to get a stalemate when my opponent screwed up.  I don't know how many games I've lost in a winning position, but I'm sure it's a few.  There is one game in recent memory where I would have won but mistakenly moved the wrong piece, and it ended up in a draw.

I think it is good etiquette to resign when the position is hopelessly lost. What burns me is people who let the clock run out instead of resigning!

Yeah, that just seems like a childish way of resigning.

Me too. But if my opponent wants to play on when he's losing, I don't mind.

some play on too long hoping for a stalemate misstake 

One of my opponents was 2423 but has now timed out on a flood of games.  He is down to 1300 now.  If he comes back he will doubtless destroy me but I would then lose a lot of rating points.  If I concede with less than 4 moves played is it ratable?  It is a World League Team match.

Not necessarily.  With such a massive rating drop from so high, I'd expect the Glicko RD to be high (indicating a large uncertainty of the true rating).  What this means is that the result, whatever it is, should have a minimal effect on you.

I think one should resign if he's got a losing position and prefers to save his time or efforts.

For example in tournament play one may consider it more useful to take a break and perform better in the next game than to try to get a draw or a win out of nowhere in a losing position.

Well the rating difference says I lose 30 ponts for losing to him, the former 2423.  What I do not know is if I concede with less than 4 moves played, is it the same as with live chess and its not ratable or will I lose the points?

 Excuse my ignorence but I have heard of people cheating on here but I don't understand how they and what they do to cheat?