What's all this about non-resigners about?

It may be annoying when you are ahead and you're opponent doesn't resign, I know. But if you really are winning, you should be able to prove so by actually winning, whether by checkmate or by your opponent resigning later on. When you play a 20-minute game against someone, you agree that you are willing to play a game lasting 40-minutes if neccesarry, so don't play one (or at least not a rated one) if you know that you will not be able to be there for 40 minutes. It may be annoying, but non-resigners really aren't that bad- they are just another kind of chess player, with a different mindset on the game (in their case, the "never give up" mindset).

It is annoying:

A) In turn-based chess, if the win is obvious.

B) If the loser lets the clock run down while in an obvious mate-in-one.

Otherwise, if there is any hope at all, I won't resign.

At last, a breath of fresh air in the forums...

I saw a skunk that was RED, and white!

There's obvious to some and not to others....I was down an exchange (with no compensation) against an old master a while back and even he lost it after allowing me a passed pawn that he never really dealt with until too late.  Never giving up has been good practice in how to use my pieces to great effect. 

You related to Dennis Waterman?

You don't mean a road kill, do you? (that's what I got when I googled it).

"Never giving up has been good practice in how to use my pieces to great effect."

In chess and dating the results are usually low scoring...

Two others who never give up:

and another:

It's all about the time controls.

If I am playing on fast time controls non-resigners don't bother me.

If I am playing on longer time controls it is better for an opponent to resign no point in dragging out a loss as long as possible.

I wouldn't resign on any games if I have a chance. For example, if I'm on an endgame of Q+R vs R, against a castled king without a back rank rook, I will not resign until the threat of back rank checkmate is gone.

If I know that there is no possible way that I can win...e.g. I lose my rook in the above situation, then I resign.

That, or if I lose too much material in the middlegame. Honestly though, I won a game despite blundering a knight away...in the middlegame, with most pieces still on the board. I lost on time against an opponent who took my hanging queen. I didn't know that it was hanging. 2 moves late, I lost. A few split seconds later, my move registered on the screen with a back rank checkmate after a luring tactic.

So don't resign! Although I do understand the problem with turn-based chess...now that would be annoying.

 Look up cinnamon. They're reddish brown, and white. As far as resigning goes, I often get disgusted, and resign too early cause I'm pissed off about making stupid mistakes.

You'd think The Brain might've figured out that "try and" is grammatically incorrect.

In my own immature manner, I have adopted a certain practice against non-resigners. (1) When I have a mate-in-one and it's my move, I send a message in the chat window indicating the final move. (2) I wait for my opponent to resign. Cut my nails, check laundry, respond to email, etc. (3) I deliver the mate if the game is still going and my time is down to 2 or 3 seconds.

What astounds me is how few resignations occur ... not even 1 in 10.

It is?

I very much resent the OP's implication that us picture posters are mere hooligans!

Hijackers:

Chess.comjackers: