Robbing who of entertainment? If the game is so lopsided that one player cannot possibly be win, who do you think is being entertained?
If you have no chance of winning, then the option is yours. But, be fair and say why not. If you want to grab the computer and lock it up, and your husband wants to play, then that’s unsportsman/woman-like.
But chess is hard, and victory only comes one way- checkmate. Often, a victory is a foregone conclusion, but getting there would take a few more hours of concentration and leave both players weary. So resigning is like saying “You win, so I’m not going to make you sit here for hours awaiting the inevitable.”
Words with Friends, or whatever, does not have just one path to victory. What if the husband has spent the last six moves setting up some grand slam with his remaining tiles, and you rob him of that? What if he wanted to run up the score, not to severely defeat his wife, but just to see what high score he can achieve? Doesn’t she owe it to him to let him complete his strategy?
It’s impossible to not accept a resignation. You’d just end up sitting at an empty board for an hour or two, waiting for your opponent’s clock to time out.
What if the rest of the game isn’t considered “going through the motions” like it would be for good chess players to queen a pawn and mate? What if there’s still some intellectual situation to be investigated, and it can’t be repeated in a new game?
Not all desires to run up the score are unsportsmanlike. Some are just challenges to oneself. Like, what if the next batter needs just a single to hit for the cycle, and the pitcher just goes “Well, that’s enough of that. We’re down 12 already. Let’s call it.” Is that sportsmanlike?
BTW, if your husband wants to be irritating about playing out until the game is won, simply advise him that if you concede, he *has *won.
If I get to a point in a chess game where losing is inevitable, it ain’t gonna take a few more hours to lose!
To be honest, I didn’t know conceding a game was even the SOP in chess. The only game I know of, or knew of now I suppose, where conceding is perfectly normal is curling.
ETA: In fact it’s seen as being very sportsmanlike to concede once it becomes obvious that you don’t have a chance of coming back.
Most of sportsmanship is about enduring some unpleasant situation for the benefit of the opponent. You agreed to allow the beating to continue when you started the game.
ಠ_ಠ Sorry, everyone. He’s been drinking. I’ll fix that:
┻━┻ノ( º _ ºノ)
(╯°□°）╯︵┬─┬
I can’t see that it matters that one player has a long-plotted strategy to win by a grand slam. If it is impossible for the wife to win and she is no longer enjoying the game, for the husband to insist that she continue so he can reach his desire score of 10000 points or whatever is just selfish. He is no longer playing a game with her; he is using her as an instrument while playing a game.
I play perhaps too much Words with Friends/Wordfeud. I enjoy both the competition of the overall game, and the challenge of each individual move. I’d be irritated if my opponent kept resigning in the middle of the game, no matter who was winning.
Besides, you never know when you’re going to be able to make a 100 point word.
Yes, but in curling, once the game is conceded, then the drinking can start. It’s not very sportsmanlike to force someone to hold off on the drinking. 
Generally the purpose of playing games with friends & family is for all parties to have fun. When two people are playing and it is no longer possible for one to have fun because one of them is mathematically prevented from winning or even tying, it seems sadistic of the other party to insist on keeping the game going.
I also do not agree that that the purpose of sportsmanship is to endure an unpleasant situation for the benefit of the opponent.
Two people agree to play a game. Half way through the game one of the parties is losing, and so decides that the game should now end. And you think that’s OK?
Wow.
Relevant part bolded. That makes a difference, you see. There really is a significant difference between quitting the game the moment it looks like you might not win, and conceding the game when it becomes clear you cannot win.
You mentioned not being familiar with conceding defeat in chess, but tipping over the king to signal resignation is in fact a well-known gesture.
Point taken. I’m not going to beat a dead horse.
The relevant point is that some believe there can be no enjoyment of anything without the possibility of winning. Ironically, these people accuse others of being pathologically competitive.
If the OP doesn’t enjoy the game for whatever reason, she shouldn’t play it and that’s fine. If the OP does enjoy it on its own terms she should play through because scrabble as a game is enjoyable on a turn by turn basis even if you are losing. If the OP grudgingly plays to pacify her husband and resentfully shoves off halfway through, they have marital problems.
So…uhhh… your quiting
Isn’t that the Phil Kessel way? 
Tell your husband he can play wordfeud with you with a mercy rule or he can play wordfeud by himself without one.
The first time you offer a resignation and they say "No, I want to play it through to the end.’ be gracious and play it through to the end but in the future, don’t accept their game invitations unless you’re willing to play it through to the end. And the inverse is just as true. If someone offers a resignation, be gracious and accept it but in the future, don’t accept their game invitations if you’re not interested in accepting resignations.
Did you read my whole post?
Some games the end state is the only real point and each turn is only in service of that, and knowing you can’t win makes each turn not fun or challenging.
But there are many games where the entertainment value comes from the actual game play itself, and “winning” the game is just an arbitrary point to keep the game from lasting forever and give players a benchmark.
If you were in some sort of competitive fishing contest, you might quit if you were losing badly. But if you are on a fishing trip with your friends, the point is that you enjoy the fishing, not that you get the most fish. Leaving the trip because your friends caught more fish is ridiculous and completely missing the point.
If you are playing solely to compete, then fine, bow out. But I think it’s silly to only play competitively games which have much deeper gameplay than the competitive aspect. If you are only concerned with the competitive aspect than you should only play games where that is the sole or primary feature.
I think refusing to quit when your situation is hopeless is the childish thing.
It follows from there that there must be a point where it is ok to quit.
That is not at all what I said. I said that when the game is so lopsided that one party is mathematically prevented from winning, it is sadistic of the other person to insist that the game continue.