I like this discussion.....I am relatively new to the game and I believe that it is a learning curve for all and I wont give in unless the opposition puts me in check mate or are so far ahead with pieces that it is only a matter of time before the inevitable happens but I have a good teacher though dont I Phantom.....lol.

I'm firmly with @YeOldeWildman here, i think that playing out to mate is an incredibly valuable learning tool. I'm a teacher and chess coordinator at my school and whenever I am playing my students i make them play it out to mate (unless the bell is about to go :-) ) so they can see and learn the patterns, and that goes for whether I'm up or down in material/position. 

the real problem that a few people have already mentioned is when people who were usually moving almost daily in a 3 day/move game start taking the full alloted time and/or vacation time in their games. I usually make my moves daily (or faster) but I confess that at times I have taken longer on some moves when I've been down as I'm letting the position mull in the back of my mind. If I can't find anything I usually resign soon after though. 

I think the overarching principle here should be, if you're there to play chess, PLAY CHESS!!! and even more importantly, ENJOY IT!!! 

I have won many "lost" games, and lost  many "won" games. Show me what you are made of :-)

re: simpledimple: "there are no hopeless endgames. players die of natural causes all the time. then their clocks fall. that is worth at least a point."

That's hilarious. Holding out for an act of God? I wonder if the game would called on account of "interference."

I am not sure but some GM of yesteryear said (maybe Alekhine or Capa) that you do not win games by resigning!

The object of Chess is to checkmate the opponent's king.  I think it is disrespectful to assume anyone is wasting time until that has been done.  If you are better than me, checkmate me, but I will fight for material and position and even stalemate if it comes to that.  None of us are undefeated and therefore none of us should assume the other person is infallable.

There are those who preach about the values of chess in real life.  What message does resigning say?  Just quit?  Just resign yourself?  Absurd.  Fight and play and live for as long as you can making every strongest move possible.

Its not a won game until you actually win it

Excellent topic.  What I often encounter on chess.com is when I'm clearly winning (novice, so not that often yet!) sometimes my opponent will play out 'til checkmate which gives me mating experience, but many times will just let the clock run out rather than resign and I get the win on time. It's my habit to be a good sport and resign when I know I haven't got a chance, and I usually send a trophy to my opponent with a friendly message - and sometimes receive one back for good sportsmanship, which encourages me to keep playing and learning.

you are so lucky my friend. did you smile as you crushed his last bastions of defense? I recently found out that the way I usually would go about mating K,R v K was not the most efficient. We are fortunate indeed when we get to rethink something, come up with something more beautiful than before and still know we will win no matter what.

there are no hopeless endgames. players die of natural causes all the time. then their clocks fall. that is worth at least a point.

well, how about fighting to the bitter end?Sometimes even the best players

blunder.Sometimes if you have a winning position you relax,after all you are clearly winning, and bang you make a blunder and suddenly your opponent has chances.Recently won a game when i was clearly losing -king  2 pawns and rook(opponent) vs me king and rook.Managed to snag one of the pawns then 

after playing for a while got into a postion where it was difficult for my opponent to hang onto his last pawn and he got frustrated and he took too much time and lost on time.

I don't believe playing to the bitter end is rude to your opponent unless you really slow down your play...

I have had people really slow down their play so as to punish you for beating them and that makes me really mad , so i block all such player so that i never play them again.

I am of the personal opinion that  "Winning a won game is more difficult".  This I say because when you are winning you HAVE to make all the right moves! A losing player on the other hand can try all under his control to obtain a draw; may be through repeated moves; or a stalemate!  Or the player winning could alway err!

I would rather play till the end for two reasons; one to learn how the opponent finishes me off; and the other for the reason that the game is not over; TILL it is really OVER!

As I say you do not WIN  a game till you WIN it!

And in the end let me add that the time limit has been set; and if you cannot wait for the time to run out; you should be choosing to play shorter time games!

It's not all about wins and losses, it is rather the path to those wins and losses that are important.  Enjoy winning and try to learn from losing.  That's my advice. 

Patience is a virtue, and a necessary element of chess mastery.  No sense in becoming frustrated by your opponent's decision to play on in what you perceive is a lost position.  Find the most efficient win!

@KageLord:  Yes, 41... Rce8 does indeed restore material equality in P_U_N's game -- an arguement perhaps for playing on if the material deficit isn't too great...  Though in the current K+R+B+2P vs. K stage, playing on is really silly unless you don't understand how to mate with a K+Q vs. K or K+R vs. K and want to learn -- something someone rated 1800 ought to already have a handle on.

@all:  IMO, the problem isn't really so much that people play on while they're obviously lost, it's that their rate of play slows way down (as in using almost all their time *EVERY* move, when previously they were usually moving much faster) something like 80-90% of the time the way it has in P_U_N's game.  In my experience, it isn't like their play improves any with all that extra "thinking" they're doing.  Clearly P_U_N's opponent wasn't paying enough attention to find 41... Rce8 -- an argument perhaps for not playing on in this manner...  (BTW, let's not vilify P_U_N's opponent;  who knows what's really going on in his/her life right now...)  However, given that many people behave this way, it appears to me that in general they're usually either (1) choosing to not deal with the game since it's now an unpleasant chore, or (2) punishing you for beating them by delaying your final victory for as long as possible, perhaps even hoping you'll accidentally lose on time.

In the first case, I think it's mildly unsportsman like;  in the second case, it's extremely so.  In either case, *BOTH* players would probably be happier if the person losing just resigned and got it over with.  And let me be clear here:  I'm only talking about cases where the person who is losing slows the pace of their play way down starting at the point where they were clearly losing.  If you're one of those folks who wants to play on to learn from a stronger player's technique, by all means play on!  Just keep playing normally without the big slowdown.  And if your opponent is much stronger, it wouldn't hurt to send him or her a message to the effect of, "I know I'm lost, but I want to learn from how you finish me off."  IMO, that would go a long ways to soothing your opponent's possible annoyance.  This issue isn't about one's "right" to play on;  it's about being courteous to one's opponent.  Your time is valuable;  so is your opponent's.  Treat it with respect.

I'm more of the resigning type, as even if there is a tiny chance of a stalemate I feel like I don't want the game to end based on that. As for a Rook vs King and King ending, though I know how to mate, I really haven't actually learnt how to do so- it was based completely on experience. Therefore I actually don't mind sometimes if my opponent play it out. So even now sometimes I have trouble on the last two moves when my opponent's king is just one spot off from the mate (I just realized this now, so I'm actually going to research it). Of course after some thought I would be able to finish it, but I don't know the exact sequence. It could be that your opponent is trying to learn from you, as many of us learned only through experience, not from books or teachers. So it may be a way for your opponent to try to get a better grip on the ending. Personally I find it way too frustrating (so think about how much more your opponent would be frustrated compared to you, as he is walking into his death, while you are finishing him off).  

I would have thought it was any player's personal choice as to whether they resign or not! Why would anyone be offended by someone playing on from a poor position? Is it considered a waste of time? Does it reveal an inflated ego? I would prefer to think of chess as a game to be enjoyed, not a place where one must obey tacit rules to avoid offending those who think they are better than others just because they can play a game with greater skill.

sometimes I play out losing positions not because I don't think my higher rated opponent knows how to finish it out, but because I still think I can learn something from the rest of the game. It's not necessarily 100% about the result...

Real player wont make blunder mistake if they make they wont resign, even though they have bad position because their would be have chance for stalemate or time out for oppsite player.... Time management should be made, i loosed more game in not managing time eventhough i had more pieces....

I think it would be rude to ask someone to resign in such positions but not much more rude than to make someone who is obviously a competent player to show them how to mate with K+R against K which is probably something they learned in their first or second ever chess lesson lol.