This is why I never resign unless I have to leave a game

But this way I can avoid losing and still analyse the game after to see where I went wrong.

I mean, losing isn't that big of a deal to me (even though I don't like it, I accept it and just vow to win the next game) so that's why I usually resign.

I play to win.

you mean "not lose"? 

I play to win, not to suffer. And most (more than 90%) of the time, playing on in a losing position results in a loss anyways, and I could have used that time to analyze the game and/or play another game.

How could that kind of blunders happened?

@snudoo it isn't suffering, trying to set up a stalemate trap under time pressure is actually quite rewarding.

I find it hard to believe you were setting up a stalemate "trap" with four queens on the board. more likely you were just moving the king somewhere where it might be stalemated.

@snudoo of course you think that, you don't play on in these situations so the idea of trying to create something in them is completely alien to you.

CalculatorKid playing bullet  will hurt your strength of play in slower games.  Because you will not learn from your mistakes. 

Oh, so we're moving to ad hominems now ?

Anyways... this is a stalemate trap. white moves to the edge of the board which increases his chances of stalemate.

this is NOT a stalemate trap, even though its the same principles: White hopes black will get mad and therefore increase the likelihood of a stalemate.

@snudoo it is natural that if you have never played these kind of positions, you won't have considered these kind of strategies. The same why I wouldn't consider resigning to spend my time under analysis.

@ponz111 I rarely play slower time controls on the Internet I have no trust in them.

I didn't know that premoving king moves back and forth was a strategy when your opponent has more than enough time to mate.

@snudoo I know you don't, because you don't play these positions.

In the following game I didn't resign because my opponent was ridiculously low on time.

Also, refer back to post 32. There's a difference between the two stalemates.

I'm glad you agree.

So we can agree that the second diagram is not a real "strategy", right? 

If so, then that's all I wanted to say.

We have an agree that it isn't about the complexity of the strategy, it's about using skill to try and achieve stalemate as opposed to quitting.

Well, sure, that's true except in a few cases. Example: shuffling the king around when it's the only piece available doesn't really take "skill" or anything.