Resignation

Is there some reason that people play on in totally lost positions? I have played out games with a queen, minor piece and pawns. I understand that some players like to play to mate but it is courteous to notify your opponent first, otherwise just resign. This is especially offensive in blitz chess.

An important rule: never resign when your opponent is in time trouble.

In blitz, time trouble is static.  Resignations are a rare occurence in blitz.  I don't understand your comment about a refusal to resign being particularly offensive in blitz.  Perhaps you recently lost a game you feel you should have won?  If so, the fact that you lost completely justifies your opponent's choice to play on.  A time advantage is as much a part of the game as a material advantage. 

Maybe they don't wanna lose? Dr. Tartakower, being lost, played long, sometimes even to checkmate. When asked why is he doing it, he answered: "No game was ever won by resigning."

Two examples:

I once played on in an OTB leage game a Rook and 2 pawns down. My opponent became so flustered and annoyed by my behaviour that he blundered and eventually lost the game. I think I'd probably rate that as the victory that has given me most pleasure out of all my games.
In short - if you get unduly annoyed when your opponent refuses to resign, this is your problem, not your opponent's. It's another weakness in your game that you should look to work on. Best way to refute your opponent is to stay calm and bring home the win, and that is not well served by taking things personally. Your opponent is only doing his or her job by putting up as much resistance as humanly possible.

The only times I've been flustered by someone not resigning have been 1) waiting for my 5th game here to end so I could play in tournaments and 2) any game where all future moves are forced.

Flustered probably even isn't the right word.  But both of these types of games now no longer bother me because a) I've completed my 5 games and b) I can make conditional moves so I don't have to wait around and for my opponent to do the only moves possible.

My suggestion to those who get annoyed when someone does not resign is to write down the winning lines and give them to your opponent.  I'm sure alot of the time people don't resign just because they want to see how you are going to win.

One of the problems with the online world in general and chess in particular is that being detatched from "reality" people have a tendancy to be even more self-centered and self-absorbed than usual. This topic gets posted repeatedly and the same issues get kicked around. For some, the only answer is their opponent must resign the instant they tire of the game. For others, the answer is that you should always play on in hopes of a stalemate, draw, or blunder. How about a third choice: your opponent might be getting something valuable by playing on; it could be a learning experience for him.

If you are going to become annoyed if someone else "refuses" to resign when you think he should, you need to announce this ahead of time before you begin to play: "I'm here for me, not you. As soon as I'm no longer interested in this game, your purpose in existence is to resign so I can move on with my life."

If you think it is an "insult" to you that your much lower rated opponent does not resign, why are you playing that person? That person is probably playing you for the chance to learn something by playing a much strong player, including how to do an overkill mate. Unless you're the second Bobby Fischer, then no doubt somewhere along your chess career, some much higher rated player was willing to teach you. If there is an "insult" in this sort of situation, it is the insult to those who gave their time and effort to you, and whom you've now snubbed by refusing to "pass it on." (And for that matter, even Fischer learned at least a little from others.)

As has been mentioned, as far as blitz goes, it's hard to imagine why anyone would ever resign. Even if you are way ahead in material, unless you have a clear forced mate, there's no guarantee that you are going to pull off the win in time. And if you have a foced mate, why would you complain that your opponent refuses to resign?

Good players resign when they see how their opponent is going to win and their opponent has clearly demonstrated that they too are aware of this. In other words, there is no chance of a swindle, or of any defense, whatsoever. They might also resign in a tournament fi they assessed their chances as negligable and wanted to conserve energy for the next round. As for players who would play on a piece down for little compensation, in the hope of coming up with something - I've seen games like this from Lasker, Capablanca and Korchnoi, and most mere mortals can expect a lot more slack from their opponents.
But this is not the point. The point is that it is up to your opponent to make the call on when to resign or not to resign. The decision has as much to do with you as your opponent's choice of moves. I agree that sometimes it would be better for everyone if an opponent would just graciously resign a hopelessly lost game, rather than insisting on prolonging the inevitable, but they don't have to, and choosing to be insulted by this (and it is a choice) isn't going to do you any good.

I made a thread on this before: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-question-on-etiquette

It seems most people feel that if you're clearly going to lose, you should resign - BUT - the rules don't require you to do so. So, if your win really is so easy then finish it off!

And yeah, blitz is about racing against the clock just as much as it is about chess. Even if you're way behind in material, you can still win on time. That's just part of the game of blitz. 

Reb wrote: Imagine one of us playing on a queen down against a titled player, and our opponent is NOT in danger of losing on time. Anyone who thinks its NOT an insult to the titled player to continue the game is a few fries short of a happy meal. I am playing just such a game now in which I have the extra queen and my low rated opponent refuses to resign. I AM insulted. What can I do about it? Nothing except to never play this person again.

 Agreed, and personally I'd resign in such a position (even against a half-decent player, not even a titled one). However, may I suggest an explanation of his behaviour? Perhaps he's simply so thrilled to be playing against a titled player for the first time in his life that he doesn't want to quit - he wants to see how efficiently you can destroy him!

I like to play a game till the end to get a checkmate or just to see how I will be checkmate.

 Resing a game or not is a personnal decision.

Have you even bothered to look at the position in question ?  I think my opponent could mate me if we swapped sides here so what is he learning exactly? I played him because he asked me to several times, however I made a mistake by assuming that he would have the decency to resign if his position became hopeless, its only a few moves from mate now. Another thing....he was making several moves daily until he reached this hopeless position and now he doesn't and yet he has far fewer choices to make. I would be glad to finish him quickly if he would only move quickly.

Hey ass, watch who you are calling a hack.

 very true...