Why don't players resign?

Right, Chris. Because  we wouldn't want to assume a tone of condescension or superiority, would we? 

people just dont.

like other peoples reply you have a chance of drawing the game.

some times its rank:2000+ vs 1770 2000: king queen 2 rooks 1 bidshop

1770: king

then it would be ovous to resign but its best not to.

Hope this awnsers ur question! :D

-apsd1109

Here's another reason not to resign..

You are in a losing position because either your tactical or positional play was not sharp or you blundered. Who's to say your opponent won't slip up as well? You're not the only human playing the game. There's two. ;)

Unless of course you're playing an engine.. well then that game is pretty doomed from the start, but we play on the assumption here we're playing humans and chess is war.. We fight to the end!

Of course when there is a significant rating difference, e.g. 1300 vs 2000 player the odds of the lower rated player blundering/messing up further is higher than the odds of the 2000 rated player blundering at all. That's when I would probably resign, and have done many times.

But I've beaten a few players rated 500+ higher than me in Correspondence games and not by time outs.. just played better than normal. Took my time more and used the analyze board.  I don't always use the analyze board and that costs me, due to rushing. But I reduced my games from 60 to 25 to try to cut back on the rushing.. but still sometimes I rush and blunder, and serves me right to lose those games. Gave away my Queen the other day stupidly. 

I am not talking about being a pawn down, or two, with some pratical but remote chances to survive.

I am talking about being LOST. King vs King and Rook. That kind of thing. Or King and Pawn, vs King, and you cannot stop the pawn from promoting, because your king is too far away. 

You should reckognize that you have played so badly that you don't have the right to waste your opponent's time any more. 

If you have played so badly maybe you don't recognise it is lost.

CHECKMATE ends the game.

There is a slight but meaningful difference between: "should resign" and "must resign".

why don't players in an obviously winning position checkmate me? are they wasting my time on purpose?

Maybe it wasnt that obvious then?

Sometimes I spot a mate in 1 or 2 which my opponents fail to see (I play 5 or 10 minute games), and then I sigh and quickly want to forget about the bad game from both players.

i know, i feel in all my games i should clearly be winning but then i fail to find the way how and i feel sorry for myself and my opponent for another bad game with mutual blunders and a draw on account of insufficient material and another 10 minutes of my life wasted away never to return again

i get a kick out of hypocritical that was that i had to reply. now lets answer your stupid questions with stupid answers, if it is a winning position and not a won position then obviously they can't checkmate you yet... unless they cheat. now they wouldn't be wasting your time on purpose because they are playing for the win which they haven't achieved yet. Now besides the point if you feel the game is worth playing on then your time isn't being wasted otherwise resign!

lol

I don't think a lot of online players are serious players.

That's false. You just need to look at the 'View Players' list here to see how many titled player play online games here. It's a great way for them to practice/study... also not only Grandmasters are serious players, there are many serious club players or ex chess club members who play online. That's a given/known fact.

Never resign ! Ever !! Never at all !!! Fight to the last pawn or until checkmate inevitable. If your opponent dislikes this ? Tough let's see his endgames skill.

That didn't come out quite right then. How about "A lot of online players are not serious players".

You wouldn't win on time with only a king anyway. The best you could ope for is to draw on time.

I'm with you Aidan! Except when playing a Grandmaster and he's thrashing me. I kinda think it's pretty pointless carrying on there. I have played a few games with one before and  I played well in them as I never spent so much time analyzing moves as I did in those games, but once I was cooked I did offer to resign, but he in fact said to me to play on as it will be good practice for me to see where I could have played better moves, even in the end game... 

Much better.. I'd even go one step further and say most online players are casual non-serious players.. but that doesn't discount that there are still zillions of serious online players. I'd even go so far as to say I believe all, or close to all serious players now play online as well as OTB of course. 

I like this topic in a sense. I have had quite a few people act like real a**holes. That is not what I like. In some circumstances I will resign, but other times I do not. When I don't you get people acting the fool sometimes. I can understand where that comes from. Sometimes I play out a game knowing I have lost 5 moves ago. Why?? I use it as a teaching tool to myself  so hopefully next time I will not be the one in the resign position. Yes, there are some situations where resignation should not be resigned.Others where it should be..Much love chess world , keep playing!

well said CharacterZero.. I will resign a game that I'm really not enjoying and feel 100% sure my opponent won't give me a stalemate and I am very down in material and/or position. Those few games that I do end up resigning are 'usually' against very high rated players, completely lost games. But most others will have a real fight on their hands.. to the bitter end.