Why don't people resign when I win their queen or rook for nothing?

Last week I was playing a kid in my mixed kid-adult chess club, (we're both in second division, slightly embarrassing playing younger people, though. But I should go up to first division next year). I simply wasn't thinking and blundered my queen....

On the 9th move!

I should have resigned, but then we both wolf have Ben's it ting around for an hour and a half, and I felt I might just be able to get back a draw.

That said, by the 47th move, I checkmated him. On the 40th move, he had blundered his queen

So it's mot always a loss if you loose your queen, even early on.

That said, If I'm on chess.com agaisnt someone my level or so, and we're not playing a Freindly or freinds already, then I ussualy resign if I've lost my queen.

#26

Shame on you, comparing people who still think they can beat you when loosing to the deaths of thousands upon thousands.

Grow up, sir. Grow, up.

I have one that is taking up until the last minute to move. The current move is forced. He is in check and must capture to get out. So I sent a message. "I'm enjoying every minute of this.".

Reason why weak players don't resign is they think they  always have hope.

cause they can still win

It sounds like you don't have any respect for the game of chess, or for your opponent.  Chess is a battle to the death of the king.  A player should be prepared to lose all pieces in pursuit of that goal.  Whether a queen or rook is lost in the heat of the battle is irrelevant.  Mistakes happen in the battle; composing oneself and battling on is the best way to honor the spirit of the game.

Play by the rules, not some imagined etiquette. 

And I will respect your skill when you have proved you have it through checkmate.  Not before.

You should've added, "And if you don't want to waste your time, block me."  Although I'm sure some thought of that anyway.

You do know people can come back easily if they are -5 and it is possible to come back if -9 so people do not resign just because they lost it. 

I snatched a queen once with my bishop, and then the bishop was NOT taken next. At the end of the game, I had lost by - a few points.

Yes, that is exactly what many are saying. Of course the chance of winning is small, but at such a low rating, the chance of a stalemate or draw is decent. I agree it's up to the individual if or when they want to resign, not the opponent. Instead of complaining that someone isn't resigning I look at it as a great opportunity to perfect checkmating skills.

And if you're in an evil mood, you can march five pawns down the board, which will give you an opportunity to perfect your skill at avoiding stalemate with five queens.

I believe the Queen it's not the only piece playing the game,ihave won many games without aqueen .

I played a game where I blundered a rook, but still had my rooks, and my bishop rook attack was so strong, opponent had to sac her queen for my rook, and I won that game!  So your comment is ridiculous.

Fine by me.  Better that than play a sensitive whiner who expects their opponent to quit out of some imagined and unearned "respect".

Because, there's always the chance of your opponent making a mistake.

Stronger players resign when that happens. But some people think they can still win even being a whole rook or some times even being a whole queen down. In most cases they are beginners with a sub 1000 rating. And in a way that's justified too considering how often people with that rating blunder.

Of course.  The premise of the thread is that one player has made a mistake that has them down by a rook or queen.  The OP must think he's infallible, or at least would like his opponent to think that so they'll resign.

 

To the notion above that "strong players resign": I would think the opposite would be true.  Wouldn't a strong player have confidence that they can be down a rook or even a queen and still win? 

I've won multiple games after blundering a piece, and lost multiple games after winning a free piece.  At GM level, this almost never happens, which is why GMs resign in this situation.  But at lower levels, it's much more common to turn a game around.

A good rule of thumb is that it's to resign when you're confident that you could take the other side and beat Stockfish - at least, when playing someone at your own level or above.  In a more complex position, when playing someone stronger, it can be instructive to see how they finish you off so you can learn from their technique.  When playing someone weaker, there's still the potential for them to hang a piece and let you back into the game.

#32

C5 or Qxxd8, you only win 4 points.

He's allowed to do what he wants, show respect for him by respecting his decisions.

This is an extreme example. I can give you many where, even after a rook or queen being taken, it is almost equal, and at least draw able.

Anyway they aren't not resigning to show disrespect, your just taking it too personally. Don't read into things too much.

because they still think they can win, they would rather fight than resign, or they aren't douches that discover half-way into the game that they are losing and just leave you to wait until the timer ends