Why do people say that not resigning is bad sportmanship?

Yeah -sometimes playing on feels like an insult to the opponent but when two players do not know each other ....online randoms.. and one person gets insulted by the other playing on ... it can also be read as ' how dare you play on against me , I am so good and never lose these positions'
I have even been insulted for playing on after I get the draw by stalemate or time victory.... 'find the resign button moron ' even though I have shown it is worth fighting to the end ... In their mind they are right no matter what ... They cannot understand the position on the board is direct reflection on the time I have used on finding moves and if I have moved too fast then I have to try and use time to win the game other wise I would always be playing to the pace of my opponent, dancing to their tune.

Boils down to people trying to bring club rules to an on-line environment which has evolved perfectly IMO down to clock being just as important as the moves.

That being said, there are some times resign button should be pressed and it is maliciously not. Easy to block these players and move on!

I've used worse language than moron to tell people how idiotic it is to play on AFTER the game. Game of chess is a game of skill not a click-fest. A trained chimp can randomly click fast. Don't be a chimp.

IMHO,

It depends how the game has gone. If the opponent was winning and blundered the win away, I think it's understandable that they play on out of frustration.

If they were losing all along, it is rude.

I remember one tournament game vs a FM where I was winning but blundered, I kept playing because I was frustrated. The FM got mad at me, but the next day in the tournament he had analyzed our game with a computer and realised that I was almost +2 up and then he understood my frustration.

It was a position where material was even but I had a passed pawn and the position was very complex. I had a feeling I was winning (which his computer analyzis confirmed) but just couldn't deliver.

Are we Quakers? Where are your manners?

You dirty sinners. Shame on you.

#12 Dont be a chimp - A chimp could look at your ratings and understand why you would make such of a comment. (just incase we have lower end primates here- its because he is lesser able at bullet than he is at blitz)
#13 Its nothing to do how that game has gone . When you enter in to a timed game then winning by time is just as valid as winning by a pretty combination that you stumbled upon. At fast time controls , winning at the start, middle game and endgame is useless if you run out of time.

It is so plain to see that I suspect 12 and 13 could be troll replies . Alas my chimp like brain will never know the truth.

Don't play on when you're down a rook for nothing. Next time you play the same opponent, you might be only down a pawn, and then you wish you hadn't helped him to practice his ability to win a won position. ;)

It depends on your rating. At my rather low rating, I play until the very end against similar-rated or lower-rated opponents because my opponent could blunder away their advantage. However, if I'm playing a good opponent, I would resign more quickly.

I once heard that if you're losing badly, you should try playing aggressively and taking more chances; after all, you have nothing to lose if you're down a piece or more. Your opponent could blunder due to the pressure of defending a won position, which is what you want. However, if you have no attacking chances at all, continuing to play could be disrespectful.

Draws can be saved from badly lost positions if your opponent blunders. Some examples:
Stalemate trap against a 2100 (mostly applies to blitz): http://en.lichess.org/ZiHTxXKY/black#87
Stalemate trap/blunder: http://en.lichess.org/MlzL2CDE/black#97
Another stalemate blunder: http://en.lichess.org/y81bNDBC/black#71
Traded down to rook pawn ending after opponent's mistake: http://en.lichess.org/LSDXytDu/white#78

As said above, stalemate or other blunders are less likely to happen against a high-rated opponent, and also less likely to happen in classical, correspondence, or over-the-board. Overall, be sure there is absolutely no hope of saving a half-point before resigning the game. Finally, if *you* think the game is still fun, you might as well play on.

#15 My chimp brain is telling me that my rating is higher than yours. Who's the chump?

#15

Once you start understanding positional chess you begin to realize that there is a truth in the position and if your opponent was following that truth better than you you will feel for him when he makes a mistake. And understand that you would have lost had he/she not.

Maybe you think that it is you that is playing? You make bad moves and always will. The position is the player and you are a humble servant of the position. So to be a master is not to play, it is to serve and carry out the positions wishes.

@Dst001 you are a very good bullet player. You beat me in hyper bullet games 3 times in row without using any time at all. You were lots of material down but managed to flag me every time. Regarding not resigning, it's an awesome thing if there is time on the clock to wipe out all your army and queen all my pawns. Not resigning is a form of masochism in this case. You will get tormented here and you deserve the entire punishment.