Why resign?

I imagine that some chess players who are losing behave like this when playing on the Internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2WH9J5n3sE&feature=related

I think psyberduck is hitting on the edge of an observation I have made about this site.  I believe that players on this site, either out of too much respect for the opponent or some misbegotten sense of our chess community norms, resign much too readily and quickly.  I am all for quick resignations in hopeless situations or situations where I am facing a strong player with with a clearly superior position, but I have had online games where a player 200-300 points stronger than me resigns becasue I won a rook for a minor piece or went up a pawn in the mid game and weaker players are even quicker to throw in the towel.  This seems to be common in online and live games and frankly, I don't think I deserve that much respect.

I have resigned games where the game was materially equal, but my position was beginning to falter.  I would be facing a long term loss after 40 moves as I cannot generate counterplay.

It's one thing to resign in an online chess game where you aren't as invested in the outcome, and something else entirely different in OTB tournaments.  At tournaments people tend to be much more stubborn.

Why do I not resign that easily?

Unless I am playing an opponent who is at master level, there is still a chance that my opponent cannot force to checkmate me even when I am in a lost position.

The best way to cure the habit of resigning is to play blitz games where the usual results are checkmates and out of time/dropped flags. On rare occassions, there are stalemates.

I only resign when I don't have enough pieces to mate or mount an offence unless blitz in which case win on time is always possible.

 After watching that I dont know what to say. I would bet that the parents paid for those things the spoiled brat kids are destroying in their temper tantrums and will probably expect the parents to pony up some more cash to buy replacements after lying about how the items were damaged/destroyed. The sad thing is that the parents will believe them and probably throw away even more money on these losers. These kids are probably the same youngsters we saw when they were younger screaming and throwing tantrums in stores when their parents didnt get them what they wanted , while customers and employees look on in bemused silence/horror and the parents stand around looking helpless as to how to stop the tantrum...... when I was a kid I wouldnt even dream of trying such a stunt and we all know why...   Just imagine these kids now having kids of their own.... is there any hope for them ?

Sure, you think those selfish kids are going to put up with brats when they grow up? Naw, they'll smack them around a few times and we'll have a generation of behavers. And the wheel keeps on turning...

I learned that the nature of parenting is a cyclic process that SKIPS a generation.

The idea is this:

1. An overly conservative and responsible adult has a child
2. The child rejects the conservatism and becomes rebellious and complacent
3. The liberal and irresponsible young adult becomes a parent early
4. The child rejects the rebelliousness and strives to become an overachiever
5. Repeat

In my experience, I've seen some truth in this, but not for everybody.

1) Ouch.

2) Civility Fail.

3) Curious what I did to deserve that.  I'm asking a serious question as an honest chess student, and I don't particularly appreciate the folks in this thread who have digitally rolled their eyes at my "ignorance" or whatever.  And I've never seen anything about resignation etiquette in any book I've run across thus far.

we've had this conversation before nothing new here. playing out til checkmate when you know you'r lost is insulting to peoples intelligence.

if I have a king vs K + Knight and Bishop I know I am completely lost if I played against a computer but against a human I would make him prove that he can mate me.

I wouldn't resign before he has demonstrated the mating pattern.

according to this thread I shouldn't even question my opponent and resign.

Yeah, but in a forum, "we" is a very fluid concept.  There are always new players coming who want to learn.  

And during the commentary on the Carlsen game today, Kasparov said that at any level of play, mistakes are possible, and often the game is about who makes the last mistake.

psy .. where did you hear that? I saw it today on MTV, not Kasparov but they were talking about the game. and they talked with other chess players.

Kasparov said the same words about making mistakes in his book, "How Life Imitates Chess."

I cannot confirm if he said it during his commentary or interviews in today's event.

The higher your playing strength, the more material is worth.  Dropping a knight as a beginner is annoying, but far from fatal.  Dropping a few pawns as an advanced beginner, and it's not a big deal.  When two 2000 (FIDE) rated players play, and one drops a knight for nothing, they will be hopelessly lost. 

Bottom line is even though you're both looking at the same position, what you're seeing and what a master is seeing is completely different.

Re-read posts 5, 13, 22, and 23. 

23 was made by a titled player (it seems often good answers get ignored).

Why resign?

Why not?

I read all those post.

read

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/can-you-mate-with-a-knight--bishopand-a-king

post number 15 he is also a titled player.

I just wanted add that there are exception. because many even higher rated opponent above 2000 can't mate with Bishop and knight.

In here I resign frequently.