Why don't players resign?

Since I play a lot of games on my computer, I'm used to playing through to checkmate.  Personally I don't care if someone resigns or not if I'm in a winning position.  Just being in a winning position makes it worthwhile, and making sure I don't make any foolish mistakes in the end game is a good way to hone my skills.  I often need to practice end game strategy anyway.

why didn't you just finish them off instead of toying with them? Knowing that some people hate it when people resign, perhaps they were on the other side, trying to be polite, and wondering "what is the matter with this guy?"

Lower rated players should resign immediately against me out of respect.  

Dr. Savielly Tartakower very often didn't resign in totally hopeless positions.

"Why don't you resign?" journalist asked him.

"No game was ever won by resigning, my friend," answered Tartakower.

Which means they shouldn't play you at all. Or abort, which is a real phenomenon.

Come on. Some of you are giving bitter-enders way too much credit. The OP cited a game where he was up two queens versus king. Are you seriously going to suggest that his opponent wanted to see the winning method? It's usually spite, plain and simple. 

And no, it's not against the rules to play on in a hopeless position. It's not illegal to tell your wife she looks fat in that dress, either. That doesn't make it a thing to be done. 

I've been playing tournament chess for twenty five years. Even as a beginner, I was taught to resign when I lost a piece for less than two pawns. But these days it seems that many people don't see any problem with playing on in a hopeless position. SMH.

Andy Solits wrote a column for Chess Life many years ago (waaay before the internet) on the lost art of resigning. I wish I could find it. 

It seems to me that there three main reasons why people don't resign when it seems fairly obvious that they should:

1.  They're relatively new to the game, so they haven't yet figured out when the right time to resign is.

2.  They're motivated by a deeply-seated aversion to losing, which means that they'd prefer to continue praying for some kind of miracle (such as a freakish stalemate, or perhaps a power outage) rather than simply admit that they've lost. 

3.  They're engaging in a form of passive-aggression, basically by trying to irritate their opponents -- especially when their opponents have already irritated them by being rude enough to win.    

It seems to me that the second of these is by far the most common.

That happens to me alot too. When I am one move away from winning they just run out there time instead of resigning. They are just sore losers who are trying to punish you for winning by wasting your time. I always play short games or just do something else on the internet while I wait. It's annoying, but you can counter it by not letting it bother you. I have also had people say swears and insults at me when I beat them. One time someone said they hope I get cancer and die! There are some nasty psychopaths on the internet, although I already knew that before I came to this site.

Apologies if this has been noted before ... John Cleese has appeared recently on YouTube, saying (essentially) that some people are too stupid to realize they are stupid. For chess then, perhaps some players are too incompetent to realize when a position (note I did not say "game") is lost.

[And yes, at 1500-ish I have trouble tying my shoes and getting the goods into the toilet first try.]

My opinion, 4 reasons why people don't resign:

• The are an amateur and want to know how/reinforce how to checkmate in the end game, which, is fine, but we alll must agree that most aren't doing this.
• The are looking for slalemate, assuming you are an amateur yourself.
• You are low on time, practical, even sportsman like, but if you aren't, they should resign.
• They hope they can win/come back. Also practical can sportsman like in some cases if the situation is not too extreme. But, if it is they may still think so.
• They are stalling or rude. This is most common, I can't tell you why; but in most cases this is the answer.
  

   

This is a long-standing complaint (but I just experienced the issue recently):  I'm a low rated player about to win against a much higher rated player.  Said opponent is irate in the chat, accuses me of cheating.  I promote a pawn and am ready to win.  He lets it time out.  Whatever.  I guess this will always happen.

@Nongxha: is that Pali script?

It seems that stalling is part of on-line play...well, perhaps any kind of play. 2 queens and K versus one K....I would try to stall a little bit for sure bacause you are so strong that one unfortunate move may lead to a draw.....anyway, the only way to avoid stalling, it seems, is to become such a strong player that you only play 3-5 minute games on-line.

There are basically two kinds of people in the world, those who care about the "spirit" of the law, and those who care about "technicalities."

A lot of people believe you should use any means necessary to win the game, so long as you are technically playing by the rules. This includes moving faster in a drawn position to hopefully win on time, never resigning even in hopeless positions, talking trash, going for "cheapos" etc.

Personally, I like the "spirit" of the game, which is unfortunately why I no longer play competitive chess. It's just not fun or interesting, and it's a huge waste of time, because everybody plays for technicalities. It kind of sucks, if you ask me, that such a beautiful game is ruined by people who have no love for it. To me, not resigning and other bad sportsmanship is similar to when a murderer gets off scott free because of some technicality in the law.

On the other hand, exactly what are you supposed to do about it? You can't change the rules of the game to force players to resign in hopeless positions; that would be subjective. So, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Maybe chess needs a doubling cube?

If I have mate in one on the board in a blitz game with, say, 30 seconds left, and my opponent still won't resign, I will let my clock run down to 1 second before delivering mate. I like to give 'em hope. 

Funny how many players don't see anything wrong with making me play a game out to mate, when I've been up a queen for ten or more moves, but they get upset if I let my clock run down. I'm not breaking any rules, am I? 

Some reasons here ... attitudes-towards-resigning.

 Wow...that's a bit strong..no? I have never thought myself to be in the company of murderers if I make an attempt (usually unsuccessfully) to gain a draw...or perhaps win by time.

Winning by time when normally you would lose. that is the "technical" game that others were talking about

personally I like to play for fun, win or lose. I normally play out the entire game just to play it out. You play it out to win on some dumb technicality.