Quitting after losing Queen.

I get it, losing your Queen, especially due to blunder hurts. But in open game to middle game the game is still winnable even with that major disadvantage...My opponent losses her Queen and without hesitation resigns the game. She was up on material and all...LMAO? That urge to quit is kinda weird, not complaining just saying. 

Anyone else out there accustomed to quitting after losing your Queen eary in the game?

It depends on the position. If I lose a pawn, depending upon the position I may resign.

wow really didn't expect to hear that

I regularly resign when down only a single pawn. I usually resign when down 2 pawns. I almost always resign when down 3 pawns. If I am down more than this it most likely means that I hate my opponent and wish to waste his time. A lost game is a lost game. It is not fun or educationally beneficial to play on.

So with a board full of pieces, 2 rooks 2 kinghts 2 bishops and five pawns, you'd resign? That's crazy.

You have your priorities wrong. Who cares about the result of the game? Hypothetically, if I was down two pawns in the opening, let's say I got my Bishop trapped but had the option of taking the f2/7 pawn with me displacing my opponent's King. If I knew (I could see into the future) that if I played on I would win a long drawn out boring game where my opponent blundered a piece in a won endgame and lost I would still resign on move 5 (or whenever) before even taking the f2/7 pawn.

Thank you for calling me crazy for playing a game because I enjoy it. You're an idiot.

No, it's not. If you have compensation, ok... play on, but if you're 2 pawns down with nothing to show for, resign for god's sake. I also sometimes resign when I'm just a pawn down because I'm tired of defending. In a serious OTB tournament (when you should take all your chances) I resign only when I'm at least a minor piece down, though. Playing when you're a whole rook down or more seems plain stupid to me.

This is stopping you from becoming a stronger player. One of the things that makes a master is the fact that they fight on in worse positions, making their opponent work to beat them. They don't take the attitude that "whoever makes the first material-losing mistake, should resign".

If you play chess purely, and I mean purely, for fun, ignore what I just said. If you play and hope to improve, show some fight. I don't mean to say don't resign, even when the position is dead hopeless. But if you still have the chance to pose your opponent some problems, play on.

The example given in post #7 is one where you should play on. Why would the game be "drawn-out" or "boring" just because you're a bishop for a pawn down? There's still plenty of play left! (And there's nothing wrong with a long game!)

Situations where I resign a pawn down are either in an endgame where I already know how my opponent can force a win or in a middlegame where the pawn deficit is acompanied by a horrible passive position with no counterplay. I do try to, like you say, continue playing on in horrible but possibly drawable positions (even with strong play from my opponent) for the purpose of improving. I enjoy improving, so that is motivation for me. I maintain that I would resign in my example though. Thank you for your post.

P.S. I don't dislike long games, but I do dislike playing when significantly down (or up) in material.

If someone can't win down a minor piece, what would make them think they should be able to win down the queen?

Was there compensation for the queen?  Two rooks is worth a tad more than a queen but in certain cases the queen is better.

Here's an example from Fine's book of a rare exception of the queen being better than two rooks.  Of course black's more active queen compared to the rooks, two pawns, and vastly superior structure determine his advantage. 

I quit when I know I have a lost position.  Losing a queen is a strong suggestion that it will be lost, but no guarantee.  Here's a game in which I lost the queen, but took both rooks and won.  Kind of a fun, unusual finish.

Welcome back to chess.com Ironlung!

I always try to fight on unless the position is hopeless for me. I have won games a rook down before.

I will, if I lose her for nothing. Especially against someone my own size (~1800) and up.

I commend to you losing the lower case/upper case affectation and the LMAO abreviation.