when should a lossed game be resigned

A very respectable player at my club always wants me to resign when the game is lossed or mate is inevitable.  I like making them earn mate sometimes (for sake of the game-not that I think I can comeback).  Is for sake of the game more important than respecting your opponent.

I honestly struggle with this one every week since he usually beats me.  (I resign now but only because he cringes when I make another move) tough one, thnx

Whenever you know they could win the position against Stockfish you should resign. The exception is if they suprise you with a tactic that leads to a nice mate in X moves. I like to let my oponent fininsh and most of them approciate the oppurtunity to (of course I would never take more than a few seconds to move if I know my opponent has a mate).

If you could win from that position 999 times out of 1000 you should resign.

If mate is inevitable, you should resign. To keep playing, for whatever silly reason you invent in your own little mind, is crappy. You are crappy. You should be caned. I hate you.

According to rules you have nothing to worry about.  It's your choice.  If the player doesn't like how you play, the player can always play someone else next time.  

Both sides of this issue make valid points on this but when we play, we play to win. There's nothing wrong with having to change that plan and play not to lose when we get beat by someone better or making someone earn it because the game is still being played at that point.  

I typically won't keep a lost game linger.  I just want to be able to analyze the game to find out where I went wrong and bow out when I have been legitmately beaten.  However I have made the mistake of resigning when after analysis I could have mated my opponent.  I don't want to do that mistake again.  

It is entirely up to you.  You will never win or draw by resigning.  Most good players resign much too soon.

When you start the game, tell the other player you will not resign.  The fair warning should prevent the cringing when you keep on moving.  If not, then you know he is just trying to bully you.  Think of his request for your resignation as a sign he knows he could make a mistake at any time and still lose the game to you.  So keep on playing.

Your oponant is use this as a phycology trick to make you lose. 

Chess is about winning and learning and nothing about what he wants you to do. 

In the situation you write about you can eithe carry on playing or resign if you don't see how to get a win, but important is to do what YOU WANT to do, not him. 

And don't forget you can win or draw in other ways like making him run out of time or forcing to draw by repitition. 

And also your opponant sound like a donkey so maybe you should play some other people instead in future.

moral chess champions and other players resign immediately a game is lost

It depends on both the players and the position. It is not unusual for weaker players to blunder in a technically won position, so play on if you feel that you have a chance for a draw (or even a win) if the opponent does not play accurate - and if that is realistic. The point is not if you can win the oppponent's position, but if the oppponent can. Look for drawing chances with stale mate or insufficient material. For instance offer your all pieces to take the opponent's last pawns if he will end with only knight and bishop, and you doubt that he has the skills to mate with these only etc.

But if it is clear to all that it is simple win for opponent, resign. If there is no realistic hope, it is disrespectful to continue the game. However if there is a nice combination ending with a forced mate, you can let him have it.

Resignition is not forced and even if the position is lost if you think that you can play then don't resign so then your opponent can prove that the position is lost ,but many consider it rude to not resign when a loss is inevitable so your choice. Yes resign when you opponent has a clear win or something like that but don't resign if the position is a tad better for your opponent play it out to see how to defend a worse position. But in the end that's your choice.

There are four reasons one would keep on playing:

1-it looks like it is lost, but you are not sure how (e.g. a rook endgame that you know to be lost but you are not sure why);

2-it is lost and you know how, but the opponent may not know (e.g. K+B+N vs K);

3-there are stakes (e.g. tournament game) and the opponent might run out of time while trying to finish you;

4-you want to piss off the other guy.

The fourth reason is not really a good reason.

 being a decent loser by timely resignation is not forced but shows respect and maturity worthy of any decent chess player

If you are completely sure that you will win the game against person about 400 points or more higher than you, and your opponent's move clearly demonstrate that he or she also knows the way to win.

Never resign. As they get more exasperated they are more likely to make a mistake. It's all about winning. ;-)

Scotland. LOL

that depends on rating.

I have seen players draw because they did not know how to mate with king and rook against lonely king.

but rule of thump is that you should resign if your opponent has a position that you could easily win yourself.

having said that I think players below 1300 shouldn't resign as the other player should demonstrate technique

Often, grandmasters resign early because they play their games as part of tournaments. The time control is usually something like 2 - 3 hours and they have to play a game every day for several days to finish a tournament.

So often, if a grandmaster is in a losing position, even losing by a little, he will resign to conserve his energy so that he can continue on in the tournament. It would take as much or more mental energy to get a 50/50 chance to draw a lost position than it would take to simply win or draw the next game.

 In my opinion, If that applies to you for one reason or another, this is a pretty good reason to resign.

If you say so.  For me, it is about enjoying the game, and derping around over a lost position in the hope I'll get a stalemate or he'll hang his queen or something is not my idea of "enjoyment" .

Over time, a player loses about half of the games they play, so this "it's all about winning" thing is a recipe for frustration and a misapplication of valuable chess playing time, IMO, when it causes one to derp around with futile positions requiring idiotic blunders on your opponent's part to have any kind of chance.  Rather than pray for my opponent being an idiot, I'd rather set 'em up again and become the master of my fate again.