To Resign or play on

 Good point, but you understood what I was saying. Maybe I should have said internet multi-day turn based chess.  

I'm strongest in the endgame, so even going in down a piece I'm usually confident that I can get a win or draw.  People lower than the master level usually can be beaten through endgame trickery, and they frequently make mistakes.  

well, before i was rated 1500 ( i am now in the lower third of the 1600s) i resigned a few games one move before mate.....

now i resign in completely, hopelessly lost positions

I resigned from resigning a long time ago. What's the point? There's that 1 out of 10 chance that a surprise pin or fork can occur. People get lazy in won positions. I enjoy playing for a draw whan I have a K and N vs K and R. More times than not my opponent falls into the knight fork at some point.

It's a book draw anyway, isn't it?

when it comes to resigning, I will often forgive weaker players, however, decent level players who insist on playing on I find rude.

for example (Nb: ongoing so NO COMMENTS):

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=24430673

^ a 1900 should really know that this game is dead lost. and moreover, hoping for a stalemate in such a position is nothing but an insult to my skill.

but, I would forgive a 1200 for playing on, since he might still genuinely feel that stalemate is a realistic chance. (how can we be angry with players who honestly believe they have a playable position?) 

And: (Nb: ongoing so NO cOMMENTS)

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=24430617

with this game however, I dont mind (so much) that he hasn't resigned. since there was (is) a reasonable chance that I might have played inaccuratly and given him a draw (i.e allow him to double the rooks on the 2nd)

In short, it is simply insulting for a decent player not to resign in dead lost positions. where there is counterplay or a chance of getting some and/or the player is not good enough to understand how they have lost, then playing on is forgiveable. 

I must say, I will never make a comment or complain about somebody not resigning, I have no insight in what my opponents motivation might be. The rules allow him to play on. I myself will resign if I feel I'm totally lost.

A while ago I was watching a tournament, where a FM was playing on board one in the last roud of a tournament. He was hopelessly lost, material, position, everything. A crowd ws gathered around the table (such things happen in RSA), and every one of them could see how badly he was losing. I'd like to know why he would put homself through that?

 No idea. I'm not that good.

If I have enough of a deficit and see more in the near future, I resign.

 Thanks Dmytro.

For me, B vs R is far trickier than N vs R.

It all depends on what the game is and weather you could be bothered. Usually if your well and truly beaten checkmate is not going to take that long . There is also a thing in economics known as opportunity cost.

If your playing out a hopeless game and not really learning much from it well maybe that time would have been better spent starting a new game or just taking a break to refresh, by playing on your costing your self time that may have had several opportunities of winning, so be careful b4 deciding.

Of coarse if you play me you wont be playing a long game win loose or draw.

I don't resign on correspondence on this site, because even if it's mate in 1 there is a chance that your opponent cannot get to a computer in time in order to make that one move.

If its an online tournament then play until mate.  If its a OTB tournament then have the common decency, and some respect for your opponent and resign.  Resigning a hopelessly lost game shows good sportmanship, and it helps your opponent conserve some energy for the next game. 

I don't resign in blitz games or if my opponent has time trouble, because then they are liable to make mistakes and should be pressured. In correspondence games and OTB (simply because it's in person) I will resign a lost position out of courtesy.

I've got two questions.

1. What lessons are to be learned by a 2000+ rated player from dragging out a lost game? (I'm assuming at that level that the miracle return blunder by your opponent is quite rare).  I do understand this approach by under 1400 players, as players are likely learning and are more apt to make blunders.

2. What is unique about this post that has not been covered by the numerous posts about resigning already?

I have never resigned during a game. Winning or losing I still play till the end.If anything, its the time that wins.

If my opponent have queen,bishop, two pawns and I have nothing I would resign.

What do you think?

I believe that endgame tablebases have K and R vs. K and B / N as a win for the side with R, however it often takes more than 50 moves to force a win. For practical purposes it can probably be considered a draw.

I think resigning is benificial if you want to improve.

Resigning allows you to spend your time studying chess.

Also if you resign your opponent may be happy to give you some ideas about the game, very benificial.