Walter Montego: The whole idea of two players being able to know the outcome and so don't need to play it out is something I find wrong with Chess

Does that mean you refuse to resign in a lost position, but keep playing till you're mated?

I fail to see why playing on when both players agree the position is draw should be required. Who benefits from that? Furthermore, in modern chess, time control is limited. To reach a position that is drawn by the rules, one might have to play an extra 100 moves. Which might mean ending the game with rapid or blitz.

Of course, if both players agree on a draw, but it's forbidden to "agree on a draw", they could just repeat the position three times, and claim a draw.