Here is another example: https://www.chess.com/blog/OldChessDog/draw
why do people play out a lost position to the bitter end?
Sort:
cjxchess16 wrote:
I think, in my opinion, if your opponent is not resigning you should take your chance and get as many queens as you can. Like my coach GM Iqwie Huzo told me in his childhood he played another guy who is down a queen and a pawn but did not want to resign. Therefore my coach was able to get 5 queens on the board, then he called many other players to look at his opponent's position.
As the players stare at my coach's opponent, he felt very embarrassed and just left the room, with about 10 seconds left on my coach's clock, he played the checkmating move at the last second.
Mentality like this is a good reason to play out, because "5 queens" people sometimes end-up stalemating the game. 
It's best to checkmate your opponent quickly and end the game; the more the game drags, the more chance there is that the winning player will make a sloppy move and give some draw or even win chances to his opponent.
Jul 16, 2017
0
#44
I play out a lot of games when I'm down material...that doesn't mean it's lost because I get stronger as the game goes on....most people that are strong at the beginning are weak at the end (at around my rating that is)....
Destroyer_Mark_1420 wrote:
To try to get lucky, to get better by stringing it out as long as possible. You do get a teeny weeny but better you know.
Actually, if you really want to get better--you should resign lost games and move on to another game. Or study a book or study end game theory or study openings--almost anything is better than prolonging a lost game.
[if you wish to become a better/stronger player]
Jul 16, 2017
0
#46
For me, it depends because I've turned losing positions into winning ones a number of times.
Example:
I don't know...but it is what keeps me awake at night.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/people-who-do-not-resign-in-a-lost-position
Destroyer_Mark_1420 wrote:
Actually, is you want to get better, you can try to fight as hard as possible to the very end. Of course, reading a book and great and all, but you want to get better in any way possible. Why read a book of your evert gonna use those skills?
I agree that if you read a book and never use the skills taught in the book--then it is not much use reading the book.
Most people who read chess books [or study endgames or study openings or study tactics] improve their game by using what they learn.
Oh, my tournament was just wonderful and had an exciting end.
6 people had 5 points. On 1, GM Viesturs Meijers played an 2200 player and got into this position:
So, if you still see a little chance of not losing and/or the match is really important, you should play on.
Of course. in an important over-the-board game where you see a little chance of not losing, you should play on.
In correspondence chess between very strong players the situation is different. Here is a position I arrived at [with white] where my opponent who was a very strong master--resigned:
wgfan0 wrote:
There was a game in the tournament I'm currently playing in (1950-1750):
lol. Black was foolish and greedy. Well done to White for baiting the trap but after anything other than Bishop takes Rook at the end, Black still has a won game. stalemate umadbro?! 
I think, it depends on your feelings in the situation. If you feel angry or frustrated, there is no reason to play on.
To learn from, obviously.