Why do so many resign early?

Would it be easier to checkmate someone or trap their queen?

I prefer to go after the king (one reason my tactics trainer rating is much lower than it should be, I noticed a mate in like 4 against me that he didn't. He also had 300 points on me correspondence

(Hrm... the sarcasm indicator seemed lost on some)

No... I don't think it's "bad" to aim for the queen.

Yes... I understand playing for position and material advantage is important.

But, sometimes, from my vantage point, an opponent's material may be down, but the position more than playable -- but they still resign.

It might just be me. I don't necessarily play for points or rank, just mental stimulation and the enjoyment of playing chess... even if I'm in a tight spot.

No, i don't think the sarcasm indicator was lost. It's just that your intended meaning behind it is what you believe. If you could trap the queen to cause your opponent to forfeit, wouldn't you do it?

Hi SkepticGuy. Play me 20 games without one of  your rooks. I will win 19 of them and you will never never ask why people resign when it happens to them again.

probably has been said already.. but I kind of like it when Im behind and try one last attack. Once that fails and everything is secure on his side I resign.

In important games being a minor piece down also doesnt nescessarily mean youve lost. If you manage to keep it like that and end up with K+N vs K...

But ofcourse it all depends on the opponent. I resign more easily against strong opponents, trusting that they will use their advantage wisely.

And reason nr 3 to not resign: practice endgames, defending and tough games in general.

Some players resigned immediately after a terrible blunder losing a knight, a rook or even a queen. They knew that with the way they they are playing, they have almost 0 chance to win or draw the game. They most probably would not even offer a rematch.

      I resign whenever I don't feel like playing anymore. Sometimes I'm winning, what does it matter?      Sounds like attention defasit disorder!

The thing about resigning is: if you don't resign in such obviously losing positions, you risk looking like an imbecile who fails to understand just how lost your position is. There is nothing to gain from wasting your opponent's time playing out an obviously lost position (if your position has resources, that is one thing, you shouldn't resign then. But if you are obviously lost, then there is no point).

I played against a Master in a tournament a few weeks ago, where I had black, and it was a Petrosian King's Indian. I had gotten into a completely lost game by move 20, and by move 29, I lost a pawn (couldn't stop it) and resigned. (yes, it was only a pawn, but the position was maybe +5.0). After the game, we looked over it, and he was very nice and explained to me that in variations where white has not played f3 yet, black must play h5 before playing f4, or else White is able to play Bg4, swapping off the light-squared bishops and ending any chance at a successful kingside attack (since you can't sacrifice the bishop on h3 if it's not on the board, after all!). I also learned a bunch of other things, and in fact, we've become friends since then. I strongly doubt that if I had played that game on until mate (which may have taken another 40 minutes and 20 moves), he would have had the time or the patience to go over the game so thoroughly with me. So it's just a matter of respect and not looking like an idiot.

Edit: Here's the game by the way.

If I were to play someone of equal strength (~2100 USCF) and they played on after losing an uncompensated queen, I'd start giving them death stares.

Can we merge this thread with the "why do people play on in hopeless positions instead of resigning" thread, because its really the same topic?

This is why newbs shouldn't attempt the King's Indian.

Lol, Mr. 1300, I'd smash you any time from either side of it.

I just played someone who kept playing with his K against my K and Q. He let the time run out when it was mate on the next move (only one legal move  for him).  He is my nomination for the "sportsman of the year" award.

That would be funny :D

I have seen a person disconnect when after He had run out of spite checks he would have to face a mate in one. (I think he was ticked because I used the Halloween Gambit )

I'll resign if down the equivalent of down a minor piece,with no compensation;sometimes down only a pawn.In general I resign the moment I feel I have no realistic chance to draw a game.

Something like WWE Smackdown.

Hey! I resent that remark.

Most times I've thought, "Why the hell did he just resign?" and then look long and hard at the position, it usually turns out they saw something I didn't.  Well...except for 'flags.

I once won my opponent's queen for a minor piece and still lost because he won my queen back later. This was an opponent over 200 points above me though, and after winning his queen I completely relaxed and stopped trying. I have learned that after you win material you can't relax because that's what the people who don't resign are counting on you to do, instead you must concentrate and try harder than ever. Often after winning material your opponent will have some positional compensation as well, and your pieces sometimes become discordinated in the process of winning material.

I usually resign if I get more than 3 points down in material. Once I lost my queen for a rook and a pawn, but I kept playing since it was only 3 points and I thought my opponent might start to relax. He did, somehow I won a knight back and got to a rook+bishop vs queen endgame and was able to construct a drawing fortress with a pawn and bishop connected and the bishop supporting the rook.