people not resigning when a piece down or 2 pawns down or down more than that

Hello, I am 15 years old and I am in the chess club at my high school. Once when I was down 2 pawns I resigned and my opponent said "It's only 2 pawns". In a game that 2 people were playing someone was up a minor piece and said "I feel like being up a minor piece isn't decisive." Most of the games there are even less close than that. In almost every game there someone is down like 5 pieces or a queen. And no one resigns! Even the high rated players don't resign when they are down 5 pieces! This kind of stuff happens online, too. In most of my games online, I am up like 3 pieces. Why do people not resign when they are a piece or more down?

There are many factors...sometimes there is genuinely some chance to complicate the position or try to lay a trap/trick. Other times the losing player is just annoyed and takes a while to accept they are losing.

I would suggest to play on until you are absolutely 100% lost. Firstly the opponent is no master level player and may blunder, secondly playing on in a losing position is good for your overall game. You are forced to be as resourceful as possible and can try whatever outrageous or unlikely moves you like as you are already lost.

@1

It depends on the opponent and it depends on the time control.
In blitz/bullet and even in rapid there is a small hope of flagging the opponent.
Against a weak or unknown opponent it is wise to play on and let them prove they can convert a win.
Nobody ever scored a (half) point by resigning.
Only resign when there is no hope left.

There are plenty of coaches who teach that you should NEVER resign.

They're wrong, of course... even for learning purposes, playing on until mate is not always optimal.

For learning purposes, you should resign as soon as you can clearly see how the opponent can force the win. Once you've learned every lesson that this particular chess game can teach, continuing it is a waste of time that might have been more profitably spent on a new game.

If in doubt, do not resign. This is a classical game between top grandmasters.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008376

I dont think you should never resign but I have played OTB games where I have been down a knight rook or queen and then went on to win the material back and win. I do think you should resign on shorter or online games tho because those dont matter as much

@5

"as soon as you can clearly see how the opponent can force the win"

++ as soon as you are sure your opponent can clearly see how to force the win

Example: KBN vs. K I can clearly see how the opponent can force the win, but many opponents cannot and fail to do it in 50 moves.

No. Nice straw-man argument.

Here's how straw-manning works: you pretend that your opponent advanced Argument B, when in fact he advanced Argument A. You then refute Argument B, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's position... when in fact you haven't even correctly identified the opponent's argument, let alone refuted it.

I said "For learning purposes, you should resign as soon as you can clearly see how the opponent can force the win."

You pretended that I said "For winning purposes, you should resign as soon as you can clearly see how the opponent can force the win.

... can you spot the difference? I can.

@10 For learning purposes you should also be able to offer tough resistance in a lost position.
A strong player does not give in easily.
Here is another example

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1066901

The easy way is to resign. The champion way is to resist.

For learning purposes, you are wasting time dragging your feet on a loss when you might have spent that time learning something new.

Sure, playing on when you are a piece down without compensation might save one point if you are a 2700 player playing a 2550 player... Capablanca was one of the greatest players in history, while Saemisch had a lifetime score against all chess opponents of under 50%.

But think for a moment about what you are suggesting. You are recommending that new players, who have only limited learning time available, should ON PRINCIPLE waste hours and hours of it on something that will teach them little or nothing.

You are still confusing "learn the skills required" with "cling desperately to every half-point".

while resignation is a legal and honorable move, it is a luxury that the average player should not be able to afford.

Ok, but what about for purposes other than learning? What about enjoyment purposes?

Someone who resigns every time they lose their queen will NEVER get to experience the joy of making a comeback and winning down a queen. Is there any better feeling in all of chess?

My rules for resigning are as follows. If you feel like there is no way possible and no counterplay that you can use to turn the tides of the game, resign (unless your opponent has played a sacrifice or combination, it is only fair to play on until checkmate for etiquette reasons).

One of the skills of chess is learning when to resign, not too early or too late, or sometimes never at all. When playing OTB, I would suggest almost never resigning, as touchmove/other mistakes can OCCASIONALLY occur. That said, when down an entire queen in the endgame, or something similar, I would suggest usually resigning.

I resign to often like 74% of my games are lost because I resign.

Being up a minor piece is almost always winning, unless it is the wrong rook pawn, or a pawnless endgame(an endgame with no pawns)

Also, I would recommend resigning when down 2 pawns. Grandmaster Ben Finegold said that when you are up "only" a pawn and there are pawns on both sides it is normally winning.
For example, The position below is an easy draw:

Now if you give both sides pawns on opposite sides of the board black wins:

When I am playing 1000s online and I am down a pawn I usually do not resign, but when I am playing someone who is rated 1500 or move I always resign when I am down a pawn, as I know they are smart enough to convert it into a win.

Most people blunder a lot at lower levels of chess. If you don't resign you get more experience playing difficult positions. The way to get better is to practice thinking in hard positions. You are looking for the best move no matter how bad the position. How do I find safe squares to put my pieces, did the other player hang anything, how do I cause difficulties to the other player? Sure the object is to win, but the other player has to prove they are better than you, not just lucky you had an error. Also converting a won game is good practice. Both of the players will benefit from the right mindset and playing games of asymetrical material.

The OP and his opponents are in a rating range where pawns and pieces are frequently blundered away. No sense resigning those games early.

That is pathetic.

Except for a few games lost on time while I was moving house from one city to another, all of my losses are by resignation.

Because when they can't win the game of chess, they resort to trying to win on time, because winning a game of chess any way you can is all that matters to 99.5% of all chess players.

On lichess you can give your opponent extra time, you can even allow take backs, you can't on here. I give people extra time and take backs, because I don't want to win on time, but no one ever gives me extra time, which is quite telling about what kind of people you are playing against. I like chess, but I don't like the people who play it.