This is getting ridiculous

You're joking right? I know a lot of people who will play right up until mate is due. Nobody avoids playing them. In fact, I myself have played on awhile in some situations which were objectively completely lost. If someone thinks I might slip up and give them back the game, then fair play to them.

Just played a game ... I blundered a piece, my opponent blundered his queen and rooks, and then I stalemated him with 2 minutes on the clock. Maybe you really should never resign at least at the < 1500 level :)

I'll usually play a game until I know there's no way I can come back.  I think there are some good lessons to be learned by playing a piece down, but no point in making my opponent queen pawns and actually get the mate (usually).

I used to have a friend who would resign immediately if she thought she had made an error.  We also used to play MtG and she'd "scoop" the instant her opponent got a slight lead.  That's almost as annoying as someone who won't resign. 

It'd be cool if there was some sort of karma rating for people.  It wouldn't have to influence anything, but it'd be nice to see who's nice

Maybe, you could vote a person's karma up or down after winning against them (to show who the gracious losers are).  It'd be tough to implement (probably.  I don't know.  I'm just sort of rambling out of a combination of boredom and procrastination...dangerous). Tough to implement, but it might make this not be a forum topic every couple weeks.

 you are right, I don't know anyone avoiding players that do not resign.

we are not many chessplayer and avoiding one just because he did not resign would be ridiculous actually I admire their fighting spirit.

there is hidden resources in chess, just because you are down a rook doesn't mean you have lost.

I am not defending "not resign" ..just saying that I cannot tell a position is completely until it is completely lost.

I've resigned situations myself only to hear afterwards how I could draw it.

In otb team matches it is my duty to see if I can win even if I am a piece down. we are humans not computers, and humans make mistake (otherwise I wouldn't be a piece down myself) the last one to make a mistake :loses.

even a knight down is not lost. remember the helloween gambit.

Case in point in playing through to the bitter end. One of my friends on contact list, looked down and out early on, then went downhill from there. Yet somehow he managed to sneak a checkmate (and this is CC, not a blitz!), I reckon money must have changed hands.

 even strong players can't tell when to resign and if you are a strong player and you resign in a winning position when ....

I guess never give up your fighting spirit.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/resigntxt.htm

I find it hard to believe that you'll find people willing to play against you more than once at an OTB chess club if you don't resign a full Rook down with no compensation. The concept is frankly astounding to me; if you drop a Rook, then you resign and move on. It's not that complicated.

 Well said. I dont know how many times Ive played with a piece down and won or have an opponent be a piece down and win. As long as your pieces are active, you are still dangerous.

I'm pretty sure this song is about the subject at hand:

(One touch, of course, referring to touch-move)

By several significant figures.

It's just something we all have to deal with sometimes. Understand that people can tend to play on for a number of reasons: they're frustrated, or maybe they know they're lost but figure practically speaking the other guy might not finish it well enough; just the slightest hope of saving a game is enough to not give a game up entirely, and that should be respected. Usually -- usually, it's not to be a total jerk -- stubborn maybe, but not necessarily jerky.

Resigning was an idea made simply for convenience... for the losing player, that they wouldn't have to wait so long for the checkmate they see from a mile. But if they want to be proven that they will be checkmated, then so be it -- that is after all how the game officially ends.

Any position a given player will consider resignable is completely relative to their general strength, understanding, stubbornness, optimism, etc, and what one would consider unplayable another may prefer to stick around and hope for some kind of disaster for their winning opponent.

I'd argue that it's at least as much for courtesy as it is convenience.

Well I disagree: a person should not feel obligated to resign just because "it's courteous" if they see any tiny chances -- I know when I have a clearly winning position and the other guy actually doesn't collapse I have a hard time, and there indeed have been times where in those positions, under time pressure, I totally blew them.

It's certainly respectful of an opponent's strength, but by far what matters most is how one feels about their chance of coming back. God forbid someone actually thinks a person could, in a blue moon perhaps, make a mistake in a clearly winning position.

If someone plays on in a position when it's clear they'd normally resign... ok -- they're probably doing that out of frustration or something -- but what's wrong with that? It's ok to be frustrated, and it's ok to force the person to win by actually checkmating if they want to.

Now, purposely stalling by taking very large amounts of time in trivial positions is indeed unethical, but that's not what I'm talking about.

You can elaborate on your argument if you want.

It's this "obligation to resign" that I think people believe in (like the OP) that bothers me; it's like people will hate you if you play on two pawns down sometimes. I resign when I feel I'm "lost enough", but I respect however my opponent chooses to handle their positions -- and if it's annoying to play against it doesn't matter; in fact, that lack of motivation is just what a guy who plays on is banking on to make you less alert for actually converting the position.

Frankly what I'm trying to say, is that people -- especially GMs as they seem most typical of this -- shouldn't be such babies about proving your damn win.

Well, one time apparently people complained that I didn't resign in one of those ICC simuls against GM Christiansen because I was in an endgame two pawns down... babies. They were probably just impatient to see if their game gets analyzed, while I was actually trying to learn so that someday I can convert an endgame two pawns up

Yeah I see, but my opponent never put his King onto the a-file

If i am at the WORLD OPEN in philadelphia this summer with 10 GRAND$ sitting on the table ! RESIGN my ass show me the freaking MATE !!

Someone should have taken you up on your bet; You have lost 55% of your blitz (3% draws) and 50% of your bullet (3% draws).

One thing that I don't think really can be stated is that any player over X rating should be able to obviously see when they are lost There are plenty of examples of people in losing positions going on to get a draw or win based on mistakes by their opponents. This happens all the way up to GM games, no matter how rare it may be. The mistake get more subtle and the blunders become less obvious the higher you get on the rating scale, but they still happen.

And how does one learn how to successfully defend losing positions? Just like other suggestions on how to get better; play through the losing positions until you see the mate or are absolutely sure you have no chances. Practice, practice, practice.

As the quotes go, "No one ever won by resigning" and "The hardest game to win is a won game." Yes it may get frustrating to have to play the game at the agreed on time controls (even if the losing opponent is using all the time they have) but the win still has to be proven and in CC, at least, you don't have to really worry about it. Just move and move on until is time to move again.

when it comes to rob asbury, the fool is for live chess (or turn based, for that matter)

I'm not sure you could have missed his point more if you tried.

Mostly to avoid death or [FURTHER] physical injury - yes.

In snooker [a.k.a. billiards], there are basically 147 points on the table per frame. Whenever one player has won significantly more than half of those points, the other player generally concedes that frame when it becomes his turn - even though there is the remote possibility that the player who is behind could catch up.