Why do so many resign early?

First -- hello -- my first post in the fora here.

Second -- I'm just recently (less than six months) getting back into playing chess regularly after nearly 30 years of not. So, appologies if I come off as a curmudgeonly old fart.

But...

I've recently had several games where, as soon as things get a bit distressed (usually a lost Queen, or Queen with no options but to be taken), the opponent resigns. Typically someone with a "score" higher than mine.

HUH?

I'm not big into "studying" chess theory, tactics, and techniques (though I have done some), I like to just play. And I've learned the most by either playing someone strong who's at a disadvantage, or being at a disadvantage myself.

Is it just me? Or are others seeing knee-jerk game resignations when things get tough?

It's generally considered good sportsmanship to resign if you are in a completely and hopelessly lost position. Now, that definition varies between levels of chess - At your and my level, completely lost is probably defined as down two pieces or more in material with little counterplay. It's just bad sportsmanship to keep making moves while crossing your fingers and hoping that your opponent makes a blunder.

If I'm down quite a bit it's pretty much a waste of time. I don't play at a level where I can expect my opponent to drop a piece (if only I could say that of myself). I would rather say good game and start a new game that will be more interesting than just delaying the inevitable.

I have had a couple of hard-fought games where I was down a bishop and ended up winning, but a lost queen is fatal unless there is some extraordinary tactic at hand.

They resign because the game is over, as a proper contest.

The threshold varies with strength and player preference, but really, anyone playing on a whole Queen down (with insufficient compensation) is either stupid, masochistic or a rank beginner.

I disagree. I've won the rare game or two after losing my queen. You just need to wait for the opp. to blunder into giving up a fork!

See the third option that I suggested.

I think he put it perfectly, your case included.

If I evaluate my position as -2 against somebody the same rating as myself I will resign. Exceptions to this are in bullet/blitz chess or if the game has a really crazy position. I do this because I find such games boring and I know that some of my opponents will too.

I accept your apologies for coming off as a curmudgeonly old fart.

I would like to add that, against a really good player, sometimes I will play on a rook down just to see their technique (after telling them so, otherwise they may think I'm just delaying to be a bad sport). But it depends on the position, most of the time it is just a cake-walk for them and I have nothing to gain or learn from wasting our time.

Doggy_Style nailed it - if you are completely losing (and you believe that your opponent isn't completely clueless) just resign. You might as well spend your time on a game you can learn something from (and your opponent's time too).

I have the opposite problem - I keep meeting opponents who are a queen or more down and keep playing for a miracle blunder, accidental stalemate or time-out. They will even play K v K&Q endings until they are checkmated and it's really a waste of everyone's time. The main reason I want to improve my rating is to get away from them.

I don't like to be destroyed with lost position like many others

Um... yes. I've won a couple when down a queen +1, but still in posession of both rooks. I just don't understand the rush to give up once things aren't going your way.

What don't you understand? English? A lost game is boring for both players. A lost game will not help either player to improve. People will hate you for wasting their time and offending them. I hate you.

Well... that heated up pretty quickly.

"Hate" is far too strongly worded for me, and I suspect, many others.

Change that word out for "dislike" and we have a deal!

-sarcasm-

So, I've been going about this all wrong! All this time I was focused on checkmate, when all along, here on Ches.com, all I really need to do is trap a Queen.

-sarcasm-

In all seriousness though, that is what you're trying to do early on in the game. Not necessarily trapping a queen, but winning material. You usually don't think too much about checkmating your opponent in the opening and midgame unless his King is exposed.

What? You think that it is bad to aim to win a Queen? What does chess.com have to do with this? You think that outside of this site people suddenly stop resigning? There is something wrong with you.