Why do master chess players resign when they're about to lose?

Opponents who don't resign volunteer to help me practice the B+N mate.

Back to the Question: Why do master chess players resign when they're about to lose?

I see it in books and in games displayed here. There will be a Master game being discussed and then it shows one resigns.

No explanation that in seven moves they saw a mate in several variations or a overwelming gain in material. 

So I can never see those variations in my head. I assume there would be a loss but I didlike when they do that. Sometimes I pose the question for a continuation of the game but it isn't done.

Then is some instances the author is wrong and someone points out a way to win the game.

Because they wouldn't be called Masters if they resigned when they were about to win. Good reason?

Fight fire with fire Chou both get burned

masters and grandmasters resign for a variety of reasons.

1. they know they are dead lost and the opponent is easily skilled enough to win.

2. It would be a sign of disrespect not to resign

3. The person with the loss game has no interest in playing more moves in such a position.

4. They want to examine why they lost and want to get to it.

many other reasons...

I have had players resign to me in positions where approximately 99% of all players would not resign. It was because the other player knew I would eventually win and it was a correspondence game and he did not want to endure the process of trying to draw.

It was also a sign of great respect and friendship.

In 15 minute games there is one player rated at my level and sometimes higher who will resign early in the opening if I get an advantage. Why? Because he is much more interested in the best move in the opening than trying to win or draw.

There are hundreds of possible reasons to resign.

Not resigning against a master in a hopeless situation is disrespectful. Besides, if you were the general of an army, would you keep fighting a hopelessly lost battle until all your men died, or would surrender and try to salvage what you could? (Ok, I know, chess doesn't work that way, but it's the spirit of the thing!)

If you're at patzer level like us, the best rule of thumb for resigning or not is: are you still having fun with the game? If not, there is no need to continue. Simply resign and start a new game. Personally, if I can no longer find any sort of plan for saving the game, I will resign. It's not about winning or losing, it's about having fun and becoming a better chess player. If I can't accomplish either of those goals, why waste my time?

well said soothsayer 8 saved me alot of typing

Simonseirup  In the sutuation you described---you have already waited way too long to resign and I do not think your opponent will be happy with you or want to talk to you.

Prepare to be disappointed a lot as you improve, until your opinion on this subject changes- and make no mistake, it will change if you keep improving. Very few players that are both good at chess and mature will play a non-Blitz game to checkmate.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't make me that mad, but I just like to play it to the end.

50 moves later bob realises it was now a draw and is the laughing stock of the world for not winning even though he had a queen and a lot of material against just a king.

No, because as I've said twice before in this thread, that only applies when the player claiming the draw is keeping notation.  If John never resigns and they're playing a friendly game, he's probably not keeping notation.

There is another way to deal with players who never resign.  Just do not play chess with them.

The difinite answer is:

They resign because they are about too lose.

So if he claims draw then a FIDE official is going to come in and point it out?? NO

Bob can keep playing forever if he wants to knowing that he actually drew an easily winning game.

Or john could play carefully and try to stalemate the game. Which is even more humiliating.

In the game I described, they were friends playing friends, note at a tournament.  They were not keeping notation of the moves.  When it got down to the end, Bob started counting moves and when needed, he would take a pawn to reset the counter.  Eventually, when he had nothing left to take and the move counter was getting close, he played the mate.

Stalemate wasn't going to happen.  John's pawns were all imobile, and his king was trapped moving back and forth on one row.

The lesson took, for what it's worth.  Bob started resigning in clearly lost situations.

Like chess_gg said there is many factors that come into play. Me personally when I am really on my game I can see about eight moves ahead for White and Black.

When you peak above 2100 allot of positional play as well as positional factors and values are thrown into the mix of things. Some of the things that may not be 100% clear to the average player is to a higher level player.

You may even see some very high rated players at times while watching them actually drop pieces purposely. Usually Knights, Bishops, Pawns Sometimes even rooks. Then boom out of nowhere its over its mate.

Usually always in due to better positional play to get at the king to mate him yet for a low rated player to just stare at a board with all the pieces on the board without the sequence being done. Allot of the times they may not catch it or see that themselves.

Just like in the movie: Searching For Bobby Fischer when he was in the chess hall with Bruce Pandolfini and He told Josh not to move any of the pieces on the board until He seen the Mating move.

Though Josh said he couldnt do it at first that is when Bruce Pandolfini said HERE I WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU and woosh all the pieces flew off the table.

After about another minute Josh was able to see it without any of those pieces being on the board and He told Bruce Pandolfini the move and Bruce said GOOD JOB then told Josh here I have something for you.

Then Bruce Pandolfini said you just earned yourself some master points.

Most lower rated players may just skip over that move like I say that is about the best way I can explain it.