Why many people resign as soon as they lose some material instead of fighting until the end?

I don't know. GM Ben Finegold says 'Never resign'. The point is that once you resign you have lost, but if you play the game and look for the best moves you have a chance to improve your chess by seeing difficult positions that you need to think about, and, of course, your oponent can blunder which lets you back into the game. I have won several games from lost positions and gone back to learn from my errors and theirs. Some people get angry when you play on with minimal material, but chess is a struggle and there is no rule saying you have to resign that is a personal choice.

Anger, discouragement, lack of motivations... who knows. It also happens to me that the opponent resigns as soon as he loses a bishop. In unrated games it's the norm here ( for those rare times you find an opponent, after waiting for at least a quarter of an hour...), but it often happens in rated ones too.

Personally I prefer to resign when it seems to me that the situation is irrimediably compromised, but certainly not when I am one knight down in the middle game...

Players don't resign because every thousand games or so their opponent blunders stalemate. A 402 rating is much higher than a 400 rating, don't you know.

They are born losers

Because I value my time. I would rather start a new, meaningful game, than waste my time hoping my opponent does an even bigger mistake than me.

Ben Finegold says many things in jest, for fun. So when he says "never resign", he makes fun of those who think that.

Or he plays like a cat with a mouse, as in the setup of his pieces upside down after promoting pawns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31dOlVyoT3o

I recently had an opponent play a gambit against me and resign on something like move 14 after I navigated my way through the dangers and castled queenside leaving him with little compensation for the pawn.

Sometimes opponents are looking for a particular type of game, or to practice a particular opening or whatever, and once their plans are spoiled they're like "not what I bargained for, see ya". Not everyone is as concerned with maximizing results as you or I.

That having been said I think that scene from "Queen's Gambit", where Beth learns to resign, should be mandatory training for all chess players. It's one thing to not resign in bullet or blitz, but a rook or more down in a long game or, God forbid, "postal" !?!? Freakin' resign already!

I know when to resign or when my opponent should resign, only because of what the board dictates, at 1000 anyone can make blunders but for me if i have say a rook vs a pair of strong bishops and an extra pawn, ill resign. ben is a fool anyway and is a very arrogant player lol

being down a rook or so early in the game is not a cause to resign unless you are a grand master, its very doable to make a comeback, people who trap rooks early tend to have back end weaknesses in return.

anyone under 2000 is easily beatable and can make huge blunders.

I resign as soon as I feel I cannot reasonably expect to draw the game. I have no interest in wasting time playing out the game via "hope chess" wherein I "hope" my opponent makes a mistake severe enough that it allows me back in the game. I'll sometimes resign if I blunder a pawn; I most definitely resign when down by 3 pawns. I'm just not interested in playing "blunder chess", playing out 30-40 lost games in the hope I can salvage a couple.

Being two pawns up is decisive. Being up a minor piece is decisive if there are pawns. Being up more than that is ALWAYS decisive. People resign because why waste time when you know the game is completely lost.

NEVER RESIGN!!!

because they prob just give up thinking the player is just better than them

But I think resign button does not exist...