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

Other than occasionally hitting resign out of self disgust when I blunder a queen early on, I generally don’t resign unless I’m down 12+ material points or checkmate in a few moves is inevitable. At my level, there’s always hope for opponent’s blunder, or stalemate, or to time them out (the latter in speed games for sure, where I get way behind but up on time and dance until opponent times out because at my level killer endgames aren’t the rule).

Here is one. They're going to lose their queen but with how aggressive they were, it's pretty shocking they didn't even see how the trades washed out and what their position looked like. They had me in a tough spot trying to avoid mate for several moves and then just insta-resign the second I'm going to be in a better position.

 

If losing a Queen and pawn for a knight isn’t a reasonable reason to resign then…

 

I win/draw games in that position and lose/draw to people in it, all the time. We aren't GM's. If that's a purely logical decision, they are overestimating me and underestimating themselves.

Your 600 rating is entirely relevant. It demonstrates that you don't understand chess as well as you think.

I'm sorry if this notion upsets you, but it's inarguably true. An objective fact. There is a world of understanding, regarding chess, that you simply do not possess.

This is true for all of us, to varying degrees. We all have much to learn. Once we can willingly admit this, we can allow ourselves room for growth.

I mentioned players who refuse to resign, when losing, because of poor sportsmanship (purposely stalling, intentionally disconnecting, spamming draw offers, etc...), and you literally argued such players "don't exist".

This, right there, suggests that you are too inexperienced to even realize that such players play the game.

Once you reach a certain level of play, you begin to face a specific kind of player: those who have dedicated a considerable amount of their lives to chess.

Many of these players will get angry when they lose. Furious. They take losses quite personally, and will often lash out, as a result.

Resigning, for these players, is an issue of pride. And, often, they will refuse to resign because it wounds their pride too much to do so.

Some of them would rather do anything, even intentionally disconnect, than accept that they've lost.

That's not mental fortitude - that's immaturity. It's weakness. It's being too emotionally fragile to accept defeat.

The irony of this thread is that the OP asks if some players resign too early because of "pride", "shame", "ego" - yet those same words apply to many players who refuse to resign, as well.

Again, I'm not talking about resilience. You are trying to lecture me about the benefits of fighting on in worse positions, as if this is some grand epiphany. Tenacity is not a new concept.

What I'm trying to tell you is that this topic (like many topics) has more than one side. A player can refuse to resign for all the right reasons.

Conversely, a player can also refuse to resign for all the wrong reasons.

“I win/draw games in that position and lose/draw to people in it, all the time. We aren't GM's. If that's a purely logical decision, they are overestimating me and underestimating themselves.”

Yes I know that. But the majority of times your opponent will convert. A player who resigns:

1) Accepts that they have a losing position

2) Realizes that although they have a chance to draw or win, it’s significantly smaller.

3) Believes their time will be better spent doing otherwise

If I lost my Queen in bullet, I would not resign.
In blitz, I most likely wouldn’t resign (unless I was on a tilt and just wanted to stop playing)
In rapid, 30 minute games, I would resign immediately.

It all depends on the situation.

“Most fans of sports dont' play them well, doesn't mean they dont' understand it.”

Sure, in football it’s not hard to understand the rules.

But this is chess, and your view that chess is a sport is bending your thoughts. If you understood chess, you would play well.

You would argue that you just can’t apply your understanding. That simply means you don’t understand it well enough to know when to use it.

True

100% Shame.....

I suspect it is because they are actually only competing for the Players league where only wins count. They don't really care about rating, and losses don't hurt them. So if they don't they think they can win, they just resign and start another game.

You've got it backwards.

Many fans of sports don't play them well (or even play them at all) - which is precisely why they don't fully understand them.

That extends beyond sports. It applies to most any field. Experience and knowledge go hand in hand.

I'm not a surgeon. Therefore, I do not understand surgery as well as an experienced surgeon.

This should be common sense.

You say it's my "ego" and "superiority" that causes me to point this out. But that's, ironically, your own ego talking. You don't want to admit that you are inexperienced. You don't want to admit that you lack knowledge.

You would much rather consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject - to the point where you have even declared that you understand chess strength better than Kasparov.

And you will lash out at anyone who dares to challenge your authority on the matter.

That's entirely ego-based behavior.

Why does a piano player sometimes start from the very beginning if they mess up in their song? Why does an artist sometimes start from scratch with a design or display that may not have worked out the first time? Why does a writer constantly write and rewrite their work? Perhaps ego has a little bit to do with it. In chess, if it is a momentum crushing blunder then it is quite reasonable, if there is little to no chance for improvement of the position, to then resign the game and move on.

Not entirely true. A piano player, with hours upon hours of practice, can gain beautiful pieces and melodies to perform. What is gained is the enjoyment of the audience. An artist gains the skills necessary to produce beautiful displays of art in a setting where it can be appreciated. And a writer can gain the ability to spread their wisdom through words. 

 

Not competitive? Nothing to gain? I beg to differ. I do agree they aren't sports.

lol who brought up quality food? If you want quality food stick to home made meals haha

everyone is entitled to their opinions

Most coaches, in general, have played the game and have reached a relatively competent level of play. This is why they are able to coach it.

Unless you're talking about incompetent coaches - in which case, I would agree that those individuals do not properly understand the game.

The majority of coaches, though, have played the game, love the game, and wish to share their knowledge with others.

This is far different from inexperienced players who present themselves as self-proclaimed experts.

My point about our rating differences is not to denigrate you - it's to point out that you don't face the same kind of players that I do. At your level, players resign (or refuse to resign) for reasons that are sometimes different than players at my level.

I've explained to you why sore losers exist at my level (and above) - because they've devoted much of their lives to the game, so they often refuse to admit defeat. It would wound their pride too much to click the "resign" button.

Losing infuriates them. They take it personally. They consider resignation an admission that all their hard work has been wasted. They loathe giving their opponent the satisfaction of a victory.

So they won't resign. At any cost.

Granted, not all players are like this. Many are mature, respectable lovers of the game. But many aren't.

If you think that the latter don't exist, then all I can say is that if you continue on your chess journey and climb the ranks, you'll eventually encounter these kind of "refuse to resign" players.

Not players who refuse to resign because they are tenacious fighters - but players who refuse to resign because they can't handle defeat.

Again, if your sole argument is that "fighting on shows tenacity and develops grit!", then I agree with you, in certain cases. Especially at your level. We're not actually in disagreement, there.

I'm talking about a different kind of player - who refuses to resign for negative reasons.

     OP says in post #1: "then they misstep and now I am up  knight or a bishop, or even a pawn and I'm going to be the one attacking and they immediately resign". CooloutAC says that these are winning positions. You have spent so much time in games with low-rated players that it seems you can't tell a winning position from a losing position. 

     You might note that I said "SOME" players have said they resign for those reasons in those conditions. No doubt others have other reasons.

     I know you find it difficult to just click on "First" and see what the original post really said, but when you are wrong just man up and admit it rather than desperately trying to look like you know what you are talking about.

 

A position being a winning or losing position is relative. If one plays against bad players, a losing position is different than if they played against great players. That's precisely why I noted my rating in the OP. 

     Actually look at what you just posted. YOU say it is all about resigning in WINNING positions. The OP does NOT say that in your quotation. I still maintain that being down a piece without any initiative and no compensation is a losing proposition. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coolout, what’s your thoughts on this: should a 2000 resign in a +8 position (according to stockfish’s evaluation) in a 30 minute rapid game with 20 minutes left to play for each side respectively?