Anybody have advice on my end game? It was close, my opponent played very strong at the end.

If we put very large emphasis on the word 'completely' then yes, that is my argument. Meaning there is a 0% chance they are going to win or I will stalemate. If that's the case, they should resign. Or it's poor sportsmanship.

I would completely understand if someone did not resign in the games here which resulted in stalemate. The fact that they resulted in stalemate shows why. These were not some kind of boneheaded epic blunders, the board lent itself to lots of possible stalemates. One rook and a pawn all in the corner with the king closing in, that's obviously a very tricky situation for the player in the winning position. Five pawns and a queen vs a king in a wide open board, that's not so tricky. The game is over.

There are interesting 2 losses in that post as well. Here's more:

This man is so locked in, I can only look up to it.

The only point I want to make... People generally should respect their opponents. Really no need to be angry when they do not resign when we think they should.

We don't know what happens on the other side either. For instance, one might be devastated after a blunder, and playing on is kind of the way to recover from such a loss as well.

And even if the reason is to look for some saving grace like stalemate, it is still ok. It would be a bit odd to play on for a GM, but for us patzers ... anything goes.

Game 2 was obviously not a situation to resign in at this level. I would never expect an opponent to resign there. Some of you seem to be bad at spotting situations where stalemates are very realistic possibilities.

Even if I disregard that game for simplicity sake (because ok, there is slightly more chance to stalemate with extra material if there is a pawn near the side of the board and king is there as well), there are others, some of which are posted.

Take just this one against rajaenggang, the last one from my last post, you play on till checkmate when you have a king against 2 pawns on the other side. Perhaps it easily could have been him posting a topic such as this after that game.

So, let's be honest now, you do it as well, which is not a problem. It can be a good thing to try to be resilient and try to be tricky in such games. Just, there is no need for double standards.

Enlighten us please, tell us when a situation has very realistic stalemate possibilities and when it doesn't have them.

When your king is in the corner and several minor pieces are around it, is an obvious one. Especially when your opponent is clearly focused on advancing their pawn, rather than mate.

Contrast to this game. He blocked my king. This is over. No chance of stalemate. Resign.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/125415576091

It's interesting how even on topics where logic is such a crucial element, like chess and programming, people become so emotional and irrational on message boards. The human mind is a fascinating thing.

That is such an interesting definition, so interesting in fact that the game 2 doesn't even meet your qualification of a stalemateable position yet you still called it one.
I think it is pretty obvious you are just saying stuff with no reasoning behind why you are saying it.

What's obvious is that you have taken this very personally and at this point, I could show you a video of me walking on water, and you would attack me saying it proves I cannot swim.

Personal attacks because you cannot argue against what I said.
Reminds me of earlier in this thread when you also ran away because your position was unholdable.

I did not attack you personally. Though your perception that I have just shows how personally you are taking what is simply a discussion about a game.

This man says "simply a discussion about a game.", like he didn't admit to breaking chess.com TOS twice in this thread and like he didn't mention torturing and shooting a baboon for fun in this thread.
This is not an argument, I just find it funny how you calmed down after all that.

Why are you disrespecting your opponents like that? Just checkmate when you have a chance.

I also find it very funny that his argument is that they are wasting his time even though he is wasting his own time by not checkmating them.

Thank you for these. They made me realize something.

Given the fact that I have done this so many times, and it's something most players never do, I have built up a skill and a feel for it. I can see a board and know if it has stalemate potential, if it's going to be tricky - or if the game is over.

I'm sure grandmasters know this far better than I do, but at my level at least, I must be in the 99th percentile at it by now.

So at least a good portion of these guys are not intending to insult me. It's just not a skill they have. They don't realize the times the game is really truly over. And I do.

See: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/125492914167?tab=review

I tried for a stalemate for awhile. Based on his response and the board, eventually the game was actually over. And I resigned. The never resign crowd would have played on. Oblivious to the fact that it was over. (Before this move, it was not).

You just made up a crowd that doesn't exist because you can't name a single person that belongs to that crowd.
The never resign crowd doesn't exist because every once in a while someone doesn't resign to you in a game because it very well could be those people do resign other games.
Please learn how research works.