What do you think about the "don't resign" philosophy?

@soni777new that is a vacuous truth. Guess what? I win 200% of checkers games I don't play. Maybe you should try getting better!

Case in point: I just won this blitz game that according to some here I should have resigned after the opponent queened his pawn. Pure "mathematics" of blitz strategy: subtracting seconds from the opponents clock, actually one of several swindles performed today that apparently I had no right to do (since according to the 'logic' of some, lofty 'truth' is that only the first to gain an advantage has a right to win).

@fpvbmct I may not agree with you, but that was a good comment :)

Nobody should be resigning lost positions.
There is still the potential for a lucky tactics, tricks, traps, or complications.

-

Everybody should be resigning completely lost positions.
It's an insult to your opponent and to yourself to signal to your opponent that you think that they're stupid enough to self-mate, even though they played you into a winning position.

-

Exception: Under 1600 players can be forgiven for anticipating self-mating moves. Resigning is completely optional under 1600.

Well, I think it's just all about choice. But normally, one should know when to resign, if one has made a blunder because one side has to make a mistake/blunder for one to end up winning, if not, no matter how you move, the game is bound to be drawn. This even applies to every sport, in a way.

...In other words. From knowing that action and reaction are equal and opposite. In chess, action (your move) and reaction (Her move) 'should be' equal (make good/excellent moves) and opposite (you're, of course, facin' each-other) -,

If you still have a queen, no matter how many pieces and pawns down and how desperate your situation, you should look for a perpetual; that is an integral part of the game. In an end game if you have any theoretical chance of getting a passed pawn play on. If you have a rook and minor piece against a queen, blockade and stalemate; a time-honoured strategy. Rook versus queen? Look for a stalemate; it happens. (Play stockfish and you'll be surprised how often he gets you.) Lone king versus a million pieces? There are sometimes stalemate possibilities, usually if the opponent is not accurate but occasionally with the lofty mathematical truth of forced draw. Still have a knight? Look to fork his ass; why not? Did your 'losing' position arise from more noble play on his part than your valiant comeback? Play and learn; resign too early and don't learn anything. Some players don't know how to mate efficiently; the proof is in the pudding! His clock running low? Charge of the Light Brigade: ride fearlessly into the valley of death and force him to think! Why do you think chess is played with s clock? For us mere mortals, chess is an imperfect mixture of logic and psychology. Kasparov: it is first of all a fight. Fischer: the object is to crush your opponent. Learn from history's winners.

It depends on:-
1-position
2-opponent's rating
3-Time left for opponent

I would never keep playing a dead position (no pieces left for me), or down the exchange vs GM. and would never ever resign if the opponent (anyone except @pengiungm1 xD) is almost get flagged.

@BrilliantAdam

Agreed.

Yea, I agree with you, nay. You should look for ways to get a stalemate for the purpose of improving in chess, cool. But you do that only when your motive is to wait for your opponent's mistake which might not happen, factually speaking. And I said in my comment that, one should know 'when' to resign, cause there're bad positions you know definitely that you cannot save the game or try (or survive). What can only cause a perpetual is a mistake from the winning side, not a good move, since the goal is to win, not joke around (maybe i'm technically saying that everything should be perfect, but sadly no one is). A mistake from your opponent makes up for yours (it often takes you back to ground zero, and that's when you can try to exploit). Chess, from its starting position of the pieces makes me think that the game is bound to be drawn if played perfectly (at least, in the same strength).
The reason why chess is played with a clock is for the sake of making the game interesting (uh maybe) by giving either side nothing but pressure which affects everyone's game at the point where it's running low as we know (-That's simply why Magnus defeated Fabiano in the Word Chess Championship); Time is a tie-breaker, like a counterpart of the real fate of chess.
So the fact is: No mistakes (and I mean, NO MISTAKES) Vs just one mistake or more (resulting in losing positions) No mistakes will win. And no Vs no means no one will win (a draw). Making a move when failing to predict/calculate lines is considered a mistake.

As you said, if no mistakes occur every game will be a draw. Anyone who plays to win must be hoping his opponent will err in some way; otherwise he doesn't understand the game. So why is it fine to hope your opponent errs when strength is even, and an abomination to hope he errs when he has the advantage? Why is it elevated and sublime for him to win because you erred (and then resigned) but base and corrupt for you to try to win when he errs in turn? Again, as several of us have observed, we're not talking about GM level chess or even masters (I don't see any on this thread) where the probability of a second error of sufficient proportion is normally very low.