why are most low level chess players utter jerks?

It doesn't matter how many times whether i am playing anonymously or on my account that some idiot will play on when he's down a rook and a bishop. it's a waste of my time for him not to resign and it's a waste of his time to keep playing on. all they do is try and run you out on time which is just stupid and not real chess.

I know, right? I also had important stuff to do, so I did what everyone would do in my situation: start an internet chess game. And believe it or not... my opponent played till the end of the game.

I was so frustrated that I wanted to share my feelings with the lichess community and luckily I can use your thread now.

To be fair, I blundered a queen once but played on (and won on time) because they had 30 seconds left.

However, if they have two minutes or more, I'd just resign. Maybe they're the same way but have a higher time threshold, or maybe think they have some way to still win.

Most of the case, it's just they think "Play to the end, I might win." and I agree it's a waste of time.

maybe it's not really that much of a waste, though?

I mean... part of moving up with your chess rating is about reducing/eliminating blunders and mistakes, as well as inaccuracies (where fit) so, playing a game to the end can really be useful as a brain exercise in that regard.

Sure, you'll have a LOT more fun with similarly-rated players, but if you've done your studying, you'll win easily and that's something to be proud of no matter who your opponent is!

It may annoy you but they are not obligated to resign just because you think they should.

And honestly, it probably is not a bad idea for people who are lower rated than you to play on rather than resign, just as an exercise as has been said. You could always play someone closer to your level if you think they are less likely to do this.

If you feel that trying to run your opponent out of time is not real chess (and you are arguably right) play a time format with an increment; that way, if you are in a position were you have a straightforward win you will be allowed to execute it even if your clock is low. In time formats without increments, winning on time is perfectly legitimate.

I don't mind if someone plays to the end when they have a lost game. I've done the same thing. A lot of chess is figuring out your best move and capitolizing on mistakes. And that can be done in any position and any game. It's not always about whether you have much chance for a win.

And playing for a stalemate is good practice;)

Winning a won position can be a very difficult task at times. Pieceupness can deceive you, and being convinced that the game is already won blunts your senses and makes you fall for cheapos. And at your level a queen up may be only a transient advantage... Trust me, I have lost many 'already won' games ;)

I was playing an opponent rated considerably higher than me, when he fell into a 2-3 move tactic which dropped his queen for a minor piece of his choosing. He continued playing and I promptly blundered my queen back about 8 moves later. :)

#8 I was playing a player about 400 rating higher, who went berserk in 10+0 classical. They had both of his rooks aligned on the 7th rank, it was their turn and mate in 2. With 2 minutes remaining on both of our clocks, they somehow moved their knight between the two rooks to check me. I, initially in great shock, realized that I could take a free rook. So I took a free rook, trapped their knight, rushed for a passed pawn and got one of my few lucky wins :-)

en.lichess.org/pOoB0jf7fbdU

Ok, this is not really something to be proud of, but just another illustration that not all cases where a person is in disadvantage should he resign.

You have to be patient with your opponents. Resigning is NOT obligatory!
Some players hope for a blunder , others want to test the opponent's strength. And many players are not GMs or IMs , so they don't understand. This doesn't prove they are jerks.