I don't quite know why pinned pieces are so problematic for new chess players, but they really are a "big deal". An undeveloped sense of board vision is what I suspect. Plus a preoccupation with other ideas.
They are less a problem after much ado in regard to practicing tactics, over and over again. They tend to get ironed-out under the discipline of exercising the brain neurons.
I don't have that problem too much nowadays. Yet, I am said to report, that I just resigned a game where I overlooked getting my Q pinned to my K by a filthy, rotten bishop.
I resigned immediately, which is the gentlemanly thing to do. I was too focused on my attack. I thought my opponent was about to become toast.
Now I must go and sulk at my stupid oversight and vow not to do it again. But, don't take pity on me. It was my own undoing. I'll be OK.
Bartender!...
And can we stick to chess and not plankton?
While the plankton hypothesis is somewhat new and controversial, the simple fact is that once you really dig deep into the study and the theory of pinned pieces you simply cannot avoid the central dogma of how in the Laplace domain they behave exactly like sharks with lasers. I try to avoid complicating the issue with these in-depth discussions which at first seem to be esoteric, but if you are really curious then we will have to dive into them, so to speak.