"Nobody ever won a chess game by Resigning"

@Ameen3234 actually you're wrong, someone has won a game by resigning. It's none other than the famed Magician of Riga, Mikhail Tal. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjn7m8FPqE

@ChessMathNerd yeah you really got a point and the words you said are really true and great sportsmanship. Really a job my friend 👍👍

Wohh let me just watch the match then @Flyingjat

#7
Yes no resigning occasionally happens at high levels.
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1066901
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008376

@Sarg0n Maurice Ashley was saying during one of the USch s that he played a game in the US open, he played a Donny Brook for 5 or 6 hours then slept for 12 hours (he lost), then played well in the rest of the event his opponent was so tired he lost the remaining 5 games in the event.

@CreativeThinking I mean, by playing chess you're banking on other's mistakes. Otherwise you'll have a hard time winning any game of chess. So why change that, just because the computer gives a different eval?

Though obviously by making moves. Not by letting the time run out, I don't think anyone wants that.

@koedem there's a difference between knowing when you're obviously lost and not knowing how to win or are losing from a given position.

#17
I gave under #14 2 examples of grandmaster games where they did not resign.
If they did not, then why should you?

Even more so when playing against non-GMs. There's a saying that if you're not a GM then "To defeat a grand master you have to win the game three times." Because even if you get a winning position against them they will keep posing practical problems.

#18 The first game had an early blunder resulting into a lost of a minor piece. However, it was not obviously losing. He churned up counterplay agaist his oppoent, where he still had a good chunck of hopes for turning the tables. He had *enough* play to trouble his opponent. In the second game, the losing player managed to setup a defensive position (which later got broken by a rook sac). Only if he could have managed to the rooks into an offensive position he would have had better chances. He resigned appropriately when he was sure of losing the game after the kight and rook got forked. The examples provided are not clearly losing after the mistake.

Now, I'm sure you would have no chances of winning when you're in a cramped situation, being a rook and bishop down with almost no counterplay. That's obviously losing, and it may just be better giving up.