why do some poeple never resiging in online chess?

I believe one of the reasons (beside the well-known one) is that one can always win on time or on opponent's resignation, and can moreover draw on many occasions. So even if the position favors the opponent strongly, that doesn't mean in any way that the opponent will win.

The only way to get around that is to request from chess.com to implement a mechanism which will automatically terminate any ongoing game as soon as either player gains a predefined advantage, and bestow on the more "advanced" player the title of "winner".

what is wrong wiht that move? if you look at it for a while i'll hope you will see that is was tacticly a good move and not a blunder.

Bxd8 Bxf2 Qxf2 Nxf2 Kxf2 Rxd8.

Count the pieces.

i missed Qxf2. remember it was a blitz game wiht an unusual opening. i did not have much time to think about every posibilitie. besides, i would only be down one point in material

So if you don't have time to think about every possibility, why do you expect opponents to resign?

Although I agree the end to the game was embarassing, but for all concerned.

Even if it's one point, the opponent would have an advantage.

Figuring out black's best 14th move is interesting.

yes but he was in time trubbeble to. if you both have like 2 and a half minutes left by 14 moves you just start to play like it is blulet chess.

and about the embararsing end, that was my point. after he had a lone kind and i have powns and pieces most poeple resign, but some poeple don't. that is just stupid.

I don't fully agree Glex, the way I see it is simple. If you deserve to win, you should win by checkmate. Failure to execute it within a time limit clearly means you wasn't able to. Time wins can be a bummer but it is quite clear how to avoid them .

Ether you really couldn't figure out how to checkmate him or you were just being a dick. Neither reflects very well on you.

That would be one additional reason (that I had not thought of) not to resign until your opponent has checkmated you. Sometimes forever.

In either case he would be totally right to wait for a resignation.

On the contrary he is, frankly, stupid, to wait for a resignation. If you have the opportunity to put your opponant away then do so. Drawing out a game that you have a winning position for increases the likelihood that you yourself may blunder or run out of time and give the game to your opponant.

Resigning is a sign of respect; respecting an opponent whom you are not looking at and don't have to deal with after the game is too much to ask for some folks.

Here's an experiment you can do at home: whenever you see someone post on the forums going on and on about how they 'always believe in fighting until the end, never resign!!!!!' just hover their name and check their rating.  That should tell you all you need to know.  There is a line and most players who continue to grow will eventually realize where it is and stop crossing it.

Resigning may be a sign of respect, but so is allowing your opponant to play their game out as they wish without getting pissy that they're not resigning when you can easily checkmate them.

A game can't be won by resignation and by checkmate simultaneously. Hence expecting your opponent to resign equals not expecting to checkmate him, and vice versa. It means expecting your opponent to do your job and follow your aims. That's why in (most) competitive activities there are rules what you can claim, and the rest are hopes, wishes, expectations and other personal attitudes to some event that aren't and shouldn't be allowed to have any forcing impact whatsoever on the opponent. That is sportsmanship and fair play, and not blaming your opponent of pursuing his goals in a totally legitimate way.

Not so complicated, some never resign because of stubburness and want to simply see if you can dock your boat. Other have no clue in a mate in 1 move, believe you me some have even commented that I could not checkmate them and with explanation.

Others want to see how you do it as they are on a learning curve.

Some expect a flaw in your moves and expect a draw after 3 repeat of the same position.

Others expect that you will surrender and give up so they win a lost game, this has happened to me actually and never again. 

Some expect again a flaw in your moves and stalemate the King.

Finlly ll of the other players that play chess and have no clue about the etiquette.

I wish here and it will not happen soon that even when playing online

games that chess.com would advise the opponent loosing a game. May not change anything but a higher authority than the player itself might bring a few players to reason.

Anyhow the best we can do is ask our partner why she/he does not give up the game and this might bring some interesting conversations as I have experienced a few times.

Never give up!

Your rating was 1304, you were playing blitz, and you'd already played a move that should have lost a piece for a pawn (14...Ng4 15.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 16.Qxf2 Nxf2 17.Kxf2 Rxd8). Then you took forever winning your "won" position; I'd have placed high hopes in your blundering into a stalemate; I certainly would never resign in such a situation.

I've played 1600s who've lost queens near the end of the game, and I've played many 1400-1600 players who failed to win after I'd blundered a queen. If you're not a titled player, you have no right to expect that an opponent should just assume that you'll win the won game flawlessly. Even a titled player should be required to show some definite progress towards winning before a resignation is tendered.

If you think that it's disrespectful to play on, waiting for a blunder from your opponent, why play chess at all? For one side to win a game, someone needs to blunder. If you don't think that it's right to require your opponent to prove that he won't lose, then don't bother playing a single move, just extend your hand and offer a draw before anyone does anything.

Plus, we're talking about blitz here. Mistakes are bound to happen among GMs, let alone between a 1300 and 1100 on Chess.com, and there's always the chance that the side with the advantage fails to win in the time prescribed.

#68 has somewhat summarised what we've been saying. It is just part and parcel of this game online

You can't teach people to resign, some people want to play to checkmate.  Ever think that some opponents who won't resign are taunting you and are laughing to themselves while you are becoming more infuriated?