Resigning games after losing one pawn. Competitiveness or bad attitude?

I know sometimes it's hard to explain why at times people made split second decisions that they did (in all areas of life), but on the other hand resigning doesn't seem to be a split second decision. Now this may be getting back into your earlier point, because this is describing myself. I analyze what I think my chances are theoretically and psychologically, my opponents rating also comes into consideration (I would play till mate against a 900 every time, at that elvel stalemate is always possible enough to have a decent chance to draw even in most hopeless positions). And I figure "why wouldn't a choice to resign be based on that logic for everyone?". Well I'm aware of reasons like "it's boring", "I'm tired", "I don't care enough to sit down that long for a stupid draw", but if those typical reasons aren't there (I would think most of the time, wouldn't you?) then I think that's what my advice would apply to.

I'm not saying it's not a valid reason, I'm just not getting into that, because I'm no psychologist. I'm a chess player though, so I help with the chess stuff, which is a big part of the resignation topic in general, right? Because of the OP do we have to have psychological discussions? No. Do we have to critisize posts not based on this psychology? Definitley not.

"So when you make some paternalistic remark about how they need more "fighting spirit" that is pointless.  Telling someone that they need more fighting spirit is going to be interpreted as telling them that there's something wrong with the fighting spirit that they already have"

Is it possible, that maybe there actually is something wrong with their fighting spirit, at least that it could be improved to some extent? Or is it forbidden to discuss this? Does there not come a point where the lack of fighting spirit is so obvious that someone could actually make a comment about it? Your response seems to be "no, you have no idea why they resign". Well, if they're about to die every time they play maybe I am wrong, or maybe my advice could help... a little? Simply put, lack of fighting spirit should be the most likely reason (I'd love to see a counter to that! I'm not joking.), and how they figure "Well I'm lost anyway" when maybe they're not lost anyway. I'm sorry I assumed that, shoot me. Can we move on?

It's just really hard to know what you're talking about at this point.  I'm going to just stop.  I think we've exhausted this topic.  It's obvious that we're mostly in agreement and I no longer have the will to fight a pointless battle.   In otherwords I'm down a pawn and I have inadequate fighting spirit.  I resign.

I still don't get what's so unclear about my posts. Sure they've been long, but they're clear to me. Well I don't care about debating this either because I don't care too much about psychology.

If this is an attempt to make fun of what I said, it's not a good one. Just restating what I said and applying it to whatever you want is just not how it works. However if this was for the debate team I bet people would indeed tell you you need more fighting spirit and try even harder to see what the hell I'm talking about. Since that is not the case, I'm not saying anything. I'm not assuming one is on the debate team, but in a chess forum, I am assuming some actual chess insight (sigh, if you don't know what I'm referring to it's about pawn down positions) would at least be ok. From a chess standpoint, I'm very confident that pawn down positions are very much worth playing on (I've seen GM games and most of the time they still play a lot of those positions out), which is why I said "should", in case they thought such positions had to be completely hopeless. I wouldn't say that if I thought I was wrong, and I know that you even agree with that opinion (except the "should" part of course) and just want to complain about how I don't know the motivations for resigning. I don't give a **** about that, I want to talk chess.

Do you want me to edit my post? In my original post after I said should, I'll just say in parenthesis that "this applies only to those who think those positions are hopeless", I'm sure that'll make you happy. Do you notice that nobody else cared about how I said it at all? You made like a 6 paragraph post, and I seriously thought you wanted me arrested for something so horrible and disgusting.

Okay.

I hate to say it, but it depends: If you are joe-schmoe playing a FIDE maser then I think its safe to resign after losing a pawn - despite any advantage you might have gained from giving it up.

You could even ask why Joe Schmoe is playing a FIDE master if you want.

But for equally matched players, I don't think losing a pawn in and of itself warrants resigning. It depends on what was gained for the lose of the pawn; for example in the opening a gain of a tempo may be well worth the loss of a pawn.

But if you know that your opponent is capable of converting the advantage of a pawn, and you know that you haven't gained anything for it or cannot convert what you have gained - then I say resign and start a new game. People may say you learn more from a loss than a win - and thats true: but in this case your loss of a pawn signalled the conclusion of that lesson ;)

But I will tell you this (from my own library of amatuer misconceptions many, many moons ago)...do not think that inflicting a pawn structure defect on your opponent is worth the loss of a pawn. Pawn structure defects and static positional disadvantages in general only really matter if material is first even.

But again, this assumes EQUIVALENT player levels.

I think it depends. If the extra pawn is say a connected passed pawn, the extra pawn can be a decisive advantage. As note in other replies, particularly if there are only a couple of pieces and pawns are on the board.

Of course it depends on rating when you resign, but in fact most titled players tend to play on for a while even if they're a pawn down for nothing like the rest of us. There's always the chance, even if the titled player with the extra pawn not allowing counterplay (not always how it is) and has good technique maybe the position really is drawn or maybe it's even hard for GM's to play perfectly. There are some grandmasters that didn't know how to mate with bishop + knight vs king, and on wikipedia there was one game that had that ending, and was drawn! A piece down at that level is absolutely resignable to them yes, but that doesn't mean that strong players just baby each other, not making them fight for their point.

This is referring to earlier on in the game. If the game is simplifying into a lost king and pawn ending, they may just give up there.

Depends on what kind of pawn. Slipped a pawn in the opening? Not 100% losing, but definitely worrying, and I want my material back somehow. Slipped a crucial pawn in a King and Pawn endgame? Oh dear...

I wouldn't do it unless it was an end game scenario and I could see my doom.  Early in the game you have to fight on.  I wouldn't say resigning is good or bad in this situation but its not really in the spirit of what I think Chess is all about. 

Just to reply to the previous... I am agree ;... We are all Unique...Me, for example,lost my Queen 11 years ago by the wrong move,but I,m still go on with my Bishops,raiting  as 25 AND 19 ...

 Agreed.  If you are resigning on a lost pawn, with no counter-active value, you demonstrate an inner-confidence.  Also, you then demonstrate respect for your opponent. 

wth?this is NOT my thread lol

Just played a game against a 1300 he lost a pawn in the middle game then resigned when there was still a very big chance to win the game. This happened a few times to me now,is there a new challenge going around?