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

I think you've really stopped making any effort at making your argument.  You have completely come over to my point.  My point from the beginning has now been completely verfied by you, if you're really paying attention.   Yes, I really think people have their own reasons for quitting under these circumstances. Some conscious and some sub-conscious. 

Plus, beginners would benefit from understanding the nature of value of drawing games.  And they would benefit by understanding the idea of looking for positional compensation when down materially. 

No you still don't get the point. Why would the OP make this post if he knew in the first place why he wouldn't resign and was (perhaps) well aware of most of those positions being drawable (in the sense that at least it would be difficult to win, if it was winning)? And this is where my insane assumption has come from, NOT OUT OF NOWHERE. And you know I knew I was speaking with some authority, and I don't care what the damn motivation is for, if it's for a certain thing that involves quitting down in all pawn down positions (minus certain teachnical positions maybe) then, because if they would just play on they would have reasonable chances, god forbid I say their fighting spirit isn't exactly perfect. Can we say anything these days? Oh, the guy wants to resign on the fifth move because he's scared, so I don't assume anything, despite the fact that he does it every time... oh well, guess he's just screwed then since no one will say anything to him. I sort of agree that people might have different motivations, but first of all this is a trivial point (I mean who cares? Why don't we actually talk about chess and how much a pawn is worth?) and second I don't doubt that the motivations that I have are similar to others, because chess is just not the type of game for big quitters, it's usually for more patient people. If one has the patience (or should I say stubborness) then playing the position will pay off in the long run, is basically all I wanted to say, and I think you took it the wrong way. Does the fact that I assumed a few things really take away my point about what I said about the resilience of many pawn down positions?

Yeah and that was my point!

Okay, you wanna keep dancing, let's dance:

The OP said, regarding his OPPONENT'S resigning (not himself resigning as you incorrectly imply in this most recent quoted post):

"Is that a bad attitude or the opposite?" 

or translated do they resign down a pawn because of having a "bad attitude" or the opposite of that, meaning resigning due to their having a "good attitude".  Pretty simple question.  

My understanding of the OP's question is really simple and to the point.  He wants to know if people resign when they're down a pawn in order to be a "good sport", meaning quitting cuz they think there's no point in playing on, OR quitting in a fit of pique of some sort and being passive aggressive on the way out the door. 

My other comments, now mainly directed at you have to do with what I take to be your extrememly one diminensional and somewhat close minded to the entire issue of how, when and why players choose to either play on or not in a given position.  To wit:

You're notion about "fighting spirit" has nothing to do with good or bad attitudes.  Attitude is a "realitive" or "subjective" value.  What's good for one may be considered bad for another. If I'm down a pawn in a bad position I might just resign as I'd rather have another game rather than muck about waiting for my opponent to blunder.  On the other hand I might be more in the mood for to stubbornly fight it out.  Neither choice is objectively better.  These choices simply would reflect my current emotional state regarding my game along with a judgment of my own ability carry on sucessfully. Most players don't play on until they are actually checkmated.  This is not because they lack fighting spirit.  I don't really understand why you seem to struggle with this notion.  In either case my "stuborness" or "fighting spirit" is quite alright, at least I'm fine with it.

Whatever, this is so trivial. Ok, I'm an idiot, you interpret the posts perfectly, but is there something wrong with actually talking about chess too, and whether or not someone who resigns in a position with fighting chances has more fighting spirit than one that doesn't (obviously not, but it's apparently rude to make any comment about that)

"Most players don't play on until they are actually checkmated.  This is not because they lack fighting spirit."

Ah, someone as smart as you is making assumptions, completely wrong ones I might add, a little hypocritical? I'm actually one of those people who would even complain that my opponent doesn't resign, and as I said in an earlier post, something like "I don't think people should play out super lost positions, just that a pawn down isn't one of them". Hell, I even said myself that GM's resigning somewhat early sometimes doesn't mean they don't have fighting spirit either, rather it means that the position they're resigning in is so easy to the GM that there isn't even point in playing on (when this happens is much much different of course at amateur level).

The point you make (that people have different motivations for resigning) is so blatantly obvious nobody even mentions it. No fucking duh if you don't have the patience to keep playing a pawn down position, then it has less to do with my analysis, but I hope that person could tell that to himself. I just figured I could offer my feedback on how hopeless or not hopeless I think pawn down positions are, which seems to be more relevant and not extremely obvious (obviously you won't play on if you have to go somewhere, or are sick! Therefore I assume we want to actually talk about chess?) The only way you should be disgusted with me saying my opinion with authority would be if you could actually argue about why it would be hopeless (in every case, and both psychologically and theoretically) which you have not.

"Neither choice is objectively better."

Why can't there be a better choice? As far as results are concerned, playing on is better. NO, I DON'T MEAN PLAYING ON DOWN A QUEEN, THAT IS SO POINTLESS (MOST OF THE TIME) THAT EVEN IF YOUR OPPONENT HAD A HEART ATTACK THAT ONE TIME WOULDN'T BE WORTH ALL OF THE WASTED TIME.

"My other comments, now mainly directed at you have to do with what I take to be your extrememly one diminensional and somewhat close minded to the entire issue of how, when and why players choose to either play on or not in a given position."

In fact, it's not about why that I have been posting. I've been saying what you should do if you have some patience to try to get your best result. I'm not taking this to the extreme, like saying a rook down is ok to play on if you're patient, no, I mean a pawn down and a pawn down only, which for some reason you had to interpret as "play till mate". What do you have against this? Is what I said really that irrelevant? Why don't we just move on?

The thing is, I agree with about everything you said too, yet you still critisize me JUST because I wanted to actually talk about the value in playing out pawn down positions, which of course makes no sense at all right? Oh, and because I was arrogant enough to say SHOULD. Well frankly, yes, you should if you want to become a better player, you have to at least be able to fight decently when you're down as relatively little as a pawn (even if it's objectively lost, not always true anyway)

"What's good for one may be considered bad for another."

YEAH, I KNOW!! A SIX YEAR OLD KNOWS THAT! ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS TALK ABOUT YOU KNOW WHAT! SOME DUDE WHO JUST WANTS TO PLAY WINNING POSITIONS CAN IGNORE EVERYTHING I SAID, BUT HE SHOULN'T EXPECT TO MOVE TOO HIGH UP.

I don't see the point in quitting a game after losing a pawn, even IF you can see far enough ahead that you know for sure you should lose, maybe your opponent doesn't see how good a move he's made and doesn't capitalize on the advantage or he might just make a mistake and you equalize. It goes without saying that we all have played games where we had a clear advantage and told ourselves "I've got this game won" and then make one mistake and suddenly it's even or we've lost the game, the reverse can happen too.

"You're notion about "fighting spirit" has nothing to do with good or bad attitudes.  Attitude is a "realitive" or "subjective" value.  What's good for one may be considered bad for another. If I'm down a pawn in a bad position I might just resign as I'd rather have another game rather than muck about waiting for my opponent to blunder.  On the other hand I might be more in the mood for to stubbornly fight it out.  Neither choice is objectively better.  These choices simply would reflect my current emotional state regarding my game along with a judgment of my own ability carry on sucessfully. Most players don't play on until they are actually checkmated.  This is not because they lack fighting spirit.  I don't really understand why you seem to struggle with this notion.  In either case my "stuborness" or "fighting spirit" is quite alright, at least I'm fine with it."

I, for the most part, never even disagreed with this. I mean, we agree, and you're just complaining about me saying SHOULD and offering an opinion on pawn down positions, simply saying the virtues of fighting it on, and saying that this will improve results to some extent, therefore if you're concerned about results anyway, you should, in fact, play most out until it's clear that that pawn will promote or whatever.

That's how rediculous this is. I don't even disagree with what you said (I mean it's common sense).

Oh no, an opinion, polydiatonic. Are you going to hate that post too? Ubergoat is just making some valid points. Yes, if you're about to fall asleep, maybe there isn't a point in playing on, but maybe the guy is actually trying to do well in a tournament?  That same person "should" probably resign the Q and K vs K at most levels, as that doesn't offer the same fighting chance as down a pawn.

If he's tired in a casual game, he might not see the point in playing a tough position (it's tough I'll admit, I just don't think it's totally hopeless), I know that. Those are special cases.

Yup, happened to me, mostly early on as a weak player, and I think it happens with everyone at some point. Losing winning positions is tough, and stopping that habit made me a better player, not only chess wise, but having the right attitude, not lacking a winning plan either even after winning material.

Hey Elbus, don't have a heart attack, ok?  I have no problem with the post here that your referencing.  Notice what was said:  "didn't see the point" in resigning down a pawn.  He did NOT turn that into any sort of admonishment or tell anyone what he/she "should" do. Uber was expressing an opinion.  Not climbing on a little soap box and exhorting people to behave the he wants them to behave.   This was a person speaking for him/herself.  Btw, you might want to consider watching your language.

Yes Uber, I agree with you.  We've all been there. Thanks for your opinion.

I have had a game on here where my opponent resigned when down only one pawn. And it wasn't mate or anything. I was a bit surprised, but in that particular position, I may have had a pawn's worth of better position also and he had basically no counterplay. Evidently he agreed.

Well, losing a piece or pawn won't make me resign too quick.  That is just me.  I fight to the end, the very end...

Also, you might consider trimming the "quoted" portions of your replies, for the benefit of any others following along.

But, to your point.  If you're finding that you don't disagree with what I'm saying (which was in fact my point to begin with in these recent posts), perhaps you could look inward and figure out why you're so aggravated.  I don't want you to have a bad day or anything. 

Are you aware of the term "projection" from psychology?  My guess is that you've noticed something in my posts or attitude which reminds you of something about yourself that you greatly disapprove of and when you sense it in others (as perhaps you do here) it really gets you going.  Just trying to be helpful. 

Btw, you're correct when you say that I "assumed" that people who don't play on until they're checkmated don't necessarily suffer from a lack of combative spirit.  Some may certainly suffer from that I suppose.

So all I had to do to get your satisfaction was to replace my words? My "should" applied (obviously) to people who had motivation to play but wouldn't want to play out a hopeless situation. Well to them I said "should" play on because, well, it would be a mistake not to if they resigned because they thought it was hopeless and not because they didn't feel like playing and figured "I'm going to lose anyway". I personally disagree with that attitude.

Yes, that might have done the trick.  If you had said something like:  "Perhaps you would have chosen to play on if you'd realized that the position still held out hope for a draw. Or, "you could have to chosen to play on if you wished to learn something about how to deal with positions where one side might have a small but significant advantage".   Words have meaning.

This is what is so annoying: You're so snotty about something extremely unimportant, like the fact that I said should, yet it had nothing to do with the validity of my opinion. You never said anything about why it would be hopeless, so what we end up talking about is something trivial and rediculous like "what motivations people have". All I came out here to do is say that it's not a waste of time to play out most pawn down positions, that was it, but apparently I'm arrogant because of the way I worded it.

I agree with what you said about motivations, but that's not what I was trying to get at. I mean do you really think your advice was going to help someone, or my input on pawn down positions? Now I don't know if my post was better than yours or anything, but it's certainly not something to be critisized because of how I say it (which I still think is fine, but maybe we should just drop that?). You're missing the big picture. I say "should" simply because in the long run playing most of those positions out will get the best RESULTS (yes it depedns on how much you care about this) in the long run, therefore it's best to play most out unless you have a very clear reason of why not to. And I don't mean one win after 1,000 games of stubbornness, no, that would be playing on queen down positions and that's totally not worth it. That's very different, I don't think it's worth being that stubborn.

I think people will find that often they are in agreement but stubbornly refuse to see the other person's point of view based on some sort of semantics i.e. they didn't say it right.  Even when their surface points actually are in conflict the people will agree with eachother once the beliefs have been expressed with the correct language so that their egos finally allow them to see it from a different point of view. 

(Edit -- of course when this happens the person/people are just being argumentative and couldn't care less about the actual concepts the words are trying to express).

In a frustrating argument where you can't seem to find the right words it's not because you can't express your point but because the other person is refusing to accept it, no matter how logical or unassuming it is.  I'm surprised how often this is true.  This is just IMO.

I don't think I'm snotty. Perhaps stubborn, but not snotty. But I'll let that one go.  I think part of the problem is that you're just not nearly as clear in your writing as you think you are.  Just now you first say:

"...so what we end up talking about is something trivial and rediculous like "what motivations people have"

and then just after you say:

"I agree with what you said about motivations"

One thing I've been accused of, and correctly I think, by people who know me is that I tend to very literal in my use of language.  I'm not saying that's better or worse than being less literal, but the result is that I can easily get stuck when things said or written don't follow a logical linear progression.  I've definatly had that problem with your posts.  Even in this last one you wrote:

"You never said anything about why it would be hopeless..."

And, for the life of me I don't really know what you're referring. We're into like 8 or so forum exchanges and it's not clear to me what you mean by "it".

My points weren't being attacked (the virtues of playing out positions pawn down), it was my apparent assumptions (they were very reasonable, as I have said, if someone has a non chess reason why they resign there's no point in giving out advice; they'd already know.) and the fact he thought I had a one dimensional view on why people resign. No, I knew there were other reasons, but I gave advice that a reasonable player (one who tries reasonably hard, if nothing else is wrong and they are too scared to play any position, he might need some fighting spirit, it IS POSSIBLE) might want to read. In fact it was not just advice, but analysis on the game in general, how solid a defense can be for example, which is not something to be critisized.

Well it referred to a pawn down position, I thought that would be obvious enough but ok. Perhaps it's just my writing that isn't very clear to you (see I wouldn't know, because I think my own writing is clear to myself of course), and you easily get the wrong impression. I type my thoughts very quickly in forum "debates".

I don't really know what to do about that, because it's clear to myself. I tend not to always refer to what I'm talking about, and sometimes I might say something as an example that people take as the real chess position as I attempt to make a point. I could see why that's unclear to people, but it's not to me. It's probably like how (most people anyway) no matter how sloppy their handwriting may be, they can always read it.

See this is where we really disagree Elu, I think in the realm of "sport psychology" is the answer to some of this. You've just completely ignored this point as far as I remember.  People very often are completely unaware of the deep seated reasons regardgin why they make the impulsive split second decisions to act one way or another.  We often have NO IDEA why we've done what we've done.  This requires introspection and for some reason you're not willing to address this as a valid reason behind why someone would quit or not in the pawn down situations we're looking at.