Why do some players immediately resign the moment they lose the momentum? Is it ego? Pride? Shame?

It's very common in my games, 1100-1300 range. The player is very aggressive from the start and pretty much every move I'm on the defensive and they are attacking. Then they misstep and now I am up a knight or bishop, or even a pawn and I'm going to be the one attacking and they instantly resign. Their position is far from lost and my rating thanks them because they'd win or draw a lot if they played it out. It's just really weird that they do that. My best guess is that it's their bruised ego. 

There is nothing wrong with resigning when in a losing position, some may even consider it good etiquette. It has nothing to do with ego, but rather a recognition of a losing position that they cannot recover from.

Of course, there is always a chance that you make a blunder or misclick or get disconnected, but they are accepting that you had a winning position.

I choose to resign almost immediately in a rapid game where I am down a minor piece or more (unless I have major compensation). In faster time controls, like bullet and blitz, I am not usually quick to resign. In bullet, I will keep playing even when down a Queen or more, because I believe that I have a reasonable chance to at least hold a draw. There are techniques to create a fortress like position and run down the opponents clock by playing moves that cause the opponent to think.

 

I agree, however I said "Their position is far from lost". So while I thank you for your answer, it does not apply to my question. I'm asking about those who insta-resign positions that are not lost, at the very moment that they lose the momentum in the game. Sometimes it's simply by losing a battle over one pawn.

 

“Then they misstep and now I am up a knight or bishop”

That position is the vast majority of cases would be lost.

 

Not in 1200 games haha. We all know we can come back from big disadvantages or get a stalemate. Most players at this level never resign because stalemates are common.

I agree and even at my level that can happen. I was up two pawns and had better pawn structures in a game once and I didn’t see that a pawn was being protected. After, the material was equal and I likely could have drawn the game, but I think frustration and force of habit led me to hit the resign button immediately. Only when looking at the game after did I realize.

@CooloutAc, I guess it depends on how you view it. I respect people’s rights to resign or keep playing. My personal decision is to keep playing in shorter time controls (which sometimes aggravates players), and to resign in longer games like rapid, unless the time is limited. People at my level can hold a decisive material advantage pretty well. Sometimes I like to use the finish against computer feature when my opponent resigns, and I try to play at a blitz speed. Many times even I am able to hold a position against the engine, so I guess it had lead me to the conclusion that they would be able to hold a position against me.

I gave an example above of when I blundered a knight. People blunder all the time. My point is that it’s less likely at my level to come back from a losing position, so I view it as not valuable to keep playing.

Well that’s only your opinion isn’t it?

 

That's the other end of the spectrum from this question. Why do some people never, ever, ever resign. Some positions are 100% going to result in a checkmate and they still don't resign. I don't get that. Like there are some very basic checkmates that follow a very common pattern. If a player takes the first 7 steps down that path and only the 8th step remains, you lost. All they do is deliver the knockout punch. Like when it's a rook vs king and they played it perfectly and you're on the back rank opposite their king and all they must do now is drop their rook. That player is never, ever, ever not going to mate you. 

I resign too much. I’d expect people at my level to know basic checkmates so I will almost always resign in completely lost endgames. They probably can hold decisive material advantages too, but I seem unable to do that so I should resign less. I don’t play blitz so I don’t have anything to say about it. Sometimes I resign because I am so demoralized I know there’s no point in me playing. I am definitely an emotional player on the chess personality thing.

“Sort of like the opinion that it is poor etiquette not to resign, which I also disagree with.”

Was that a reference to me? If it was, I mentioned that I respect people’s rights to resign or play on.
If it wasn’t, then never mind.

They might stalemate them. (I would totally do that.)

Yeah maybe.

Other than ego it might be they attack because they know they're trash at everything else, so they feel like once their attack is over they'll definitely lose.

It's been too many years since I've been 1300 so I don't know, but at higher levels it's funny because often attackers are terrible at defending. So in some games I'll carefully parry threats for 30 moves in a row, then when I finally get the chance to push back they fail after my 3rd threat lol. When that happens I always feel like...

If I blunder a piece I usually reign. That is because I believe it is usually enough for my opponent to win the game. If I have some kind of compensation or play left I will play on but if I am simply a piece down and nothing else is going on I usually resign. And I like it when my opponent do the same. I have already seen many games up or down a game that I can guess the outcome of the game. So if like my opponent blunder a queen and not resigning trying to win a queen down and we play on and just trade, trade and then comes the endgame I am up a queen versus an opponent kings and pawns. I don't think this is fun it is just dull and the game is already over from an earlier stage. Yes sometimes you can even win a piece down but most times you will not unless you have some kind of compensation.

So it has nothing with do with ego, more that I don´t like to play a lost game out. Why waste the time?

I'd never resign being only a piece down in blitz or bullet... although maybe that'd be different if I played with increment.

If my position has zero counterplay, my opponent has lots of time, and I'm down a piece, ok, I'll probably resign then.

I used to this a lot: to resign as soon as I lost material.

I did this because I was trying to hone my ability to not make any mistakes. Striving for "perfect play".

Once I had made a single mistake, I considered the game a failure. I would then resign, and spend the next ten minutes or so reviewing the game, to see where my mistake was made.

This actually helped me improve my opening play, quite a lot. But it weakened other areas of my game.

These days, I'm less of a perfectionist, and perfectly happy to play on, even after making mistakes. Chess games are like winding roads - there can be many surprises along the way.

But the practice did have a purpose.

 

No, as blanket general rule of thumb this sounds nice but it's simply not accurate. Like when it's two queens vs a king. It's the simplest mate in chess. You walk the king to one end and have one queen on each rank and it's done. If a player starts doing that dance, you are about to get mated. From the first move you can argue maybe they don't know how to do it. But once they start doing it that doubt is gone. It's 100% about to be a mate.

 

Interesting. heh I guess I could see myself doing that when trying new openings. Sometimes I mess them up and I don't really care about the rest of the game but play it out anyway.  

Sometimes you end up losing material. You think you're playing well, but you end up losing a pawn, or a piece, anyway. "Darn," you say. "Where did I go wrong?"

So you resign. You analyze the game. "Ohh.. I should have played Nc5, here, instead of what I did in the game ... That makes a lot of sense."

Then, the next time you face a similar position, you won't make the same mistake. "I remember the idea here," you say. And you immediately play Nc5.

The game goes on, and you're now just a little bit stronger than before.