This is getting ridiculous

Sometimes they slow down, because faster pace made them blunder, and now they want to think it over before they play the. You cant rule out that possibility.

This would be of course applicable to a middlegame with a lot of material still on board.

Stalling with lone king (or with little material) against (say) several heavy pieces would be rude IMO.

You should probably add that there are fouls in snooker (usually because of "a snooker") which makes comeback possible when under half points, but even then players usually concedes if lot of fouls would be needed to catch up. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snooker

Spot on!

Blessed Eurosport.

Let me point out one HUGE difference between chess and these sports that you want to compare it to. In those other sports no matter how bad one team is losing they still have an equal # of players on the field .  In chess this is NOT the case. So imagine that if in these other sports for every run, or touchdown or point you are down you lose one of your men from the field ?! This is usually the case in chess !  So, now we have a baseball team down 6 runs trying to play with only 3 players against 9 for example.....    Even under these ridiculous circumstances quitting/resigning isnt allowed. Please ...look at the game of mine I gave in this thread and can anyone here say they dont think my opponent was ridiculous to play on as long as he did ?!  In soccer you can lose players, due to red cards I believe, is there a limit on how many players a team can lose and still continue the game ?  

Actually you haven't won until you have won.  Have you ever noticed in a football game when the score is 35 to 3, they play till the final buzzer goes off.  Also in some games there has been incredible comebacks and the team that is losing bigtime at the half comes back and wins.  Be an adult and play or quit your whining.

Most patzers feel this way.... no surprise really. Most stronger players do not.. DUH   I agree that patzers should never resign ! Their blunders are of such magnitude and frequency that its stupid to resign. 

I would also like to point out to those who like to quote the famous player that said noone ever won a game by resigning that he did NOT practice this himself. If you check his losses you will find him resigning in almost all of them and not playing until mate...... 

Chess is not football.

Be it football, basketball, baseball and what have you: In none of these sports does losing points to the opponent equate losing players. Imagine if in football, you'd have to drop one player from both defense and offense teams for every five points conceded. At 35 to 3, the side behind will now also be down 7 players. Are you really going to suggest that they have any sort of realistic chance of a comeback now?

Chess is not a game designed to allow the weaker side to "bounce back", not without significant help from their opponent. At low enough skill level, this does happen. Chess is also about improving your own play, and one part of is that is that you will play against better opponents as time goes by. And at some point, you just have to realize that it's a waste of your own and your opponent's time if you play on in certain hopeless positions. As a rule of thumb, if you yourself would be able to finish yourself off with no thinking whatsoever, chances are good your opponent, who outplayed you, will be too.

Yes and no. The rules say that match can not start if either team has fewer than 7 players, but it does not say what is the minimum number of players for match to continue. However, in the rules interpretation, it is also mentioned what is the opinion of the International board.

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/index.html

"Although a match may not START if either team consists of fewer than seven
players, the minimum number of players in a team required for a match to
CONTINUE is left to the discretion of member associations. However, it is the
opinion of the International F.A. Board that a match should not continue if
there are fewer than seven players in either team."

Chess is like football, only without the dice

Thanks for this answer. I have always wondered how many players a side can lose and continue to play.... 

True word! True word!! In fact I'm about to wean myself of this bad habit of hasty resignation every time one tactic goes wrong. Rightly said. 

Actually, there are multiple points, not just one. One of which is that that people down a piece (rook mentioned) without compensation continue to play on and the claim is that over 50% of the time (s)he is wasting time playing winning positions. If that was true, then the winning percentages would be higher in the live games. Sure 15+ minute games are specficially mentioned and that winning % is exactly 50%.

So it would appear that all the time spent on "winning games" may be time spent on games that are not actually won. If you check out my other posts on this topic (or shoot the rest of that reply even), I think you will find that I actually do get the point.

I just thought this particluar point interesting. Sometimes it is hard to tell, especially at our skill levels (way under 2000 for sure) what is really won and what isn't. For every person that point is different, regardless of ratings. Sure, I can feel that I don't have many chances in a game but I'm not going to resign unless I know I have absolutely no chance. You don't learn a whole lot by resigning in every situation when you are down.

I've had recent games where my opponent has resigned in positions that, to me, look either very drawish or in which I only have a slight lead. But they thought they were lost, apparently, so they resigned and lost. I resign a lot, though it may not be quick enough for some of the people posting on this topic.

The other point, stalling (i.e. not playing) in a lost position, isn't good. In something like correspondence, playing quickly in winning positions and more slowly in losing positions is normal. As long as the game still gets played.

So it would appear you couldn't have missed my point more if you had tried

You intentionally get into a losing position and then force them to play it out?

Hmm, doesn't that just make you an even bigger jerk?

Sorry, let me restate:  Isn't doing that even more jerk-like than not resigning in a lost position?

I think it is.

Why would you do such a thing?  Seems like an awful lot of work to perform out of spite.  I much prefer playing opponents whom I enjoy losing to.

 Yep.. you are reading it right. He means that there are players (friends) that he doesnt mind losing too because the playing experience is positive.

Waste more time on them?

I've played over a thousand games here and have run into only one opponent who let his time run out when he reached a losing position.

I did not play him again.  Problem solved.