Why do People Resign in Chess after Losing a Queen?

The queen is the second most important piece, losing it usually results in positions that cannot be held even by an engine. People resign after losing their queen as the position is mostly irrecoverable. As a sign of sportsmanship, resigning shows that a player respects their opponent’s time.

I have seen the discussion trends lately where people are complaining about the players that resign after losing their queen. 

Some think that we should play on even after such a catastrophe, which has compelled me to make an article on why this happens. This is actually a common practice even at the top level if it were to happen.

There is actually a good reason why people generally resign after losing their queen, this is a good topic since inexperienced players are dumbfounded by this. 

I think I know the reason (s) on why this happens, this will put some perspective on this topic. Without further ado, let’s get started.

People resign after losing their queen because of the material disadvantage

The queen is the most powerful piece in the game, although it is not the most important (king) losing the queen will undoubtedly make it very difficult to convert. 

It will take losing the opponent’s queen or two rooks just to equalize, it is almost as good as losing. Of course there are other material imbalances that could compensate for the loss of the queen, although it will still generally cost a lot of material.

People resign after losing their queen for a very simple reason, there is such a huge material disadvantage that the player does not believe they can hold the position for long.

Losing because of a 4-5 (point) material disadvantage is understandable, the queen is around 8-9 points which is pretty bad.

Professionals could win a chess game just by being up a pawn (of course it could still be drawn depending on the position) but this gives you an idea how little material advantage is important in chess.

Every point counts, and the queen has a lot of it which can discourage a lot of people.

Now you may think that beginners are usually the ones who resign after using their queen since they don’t have the confidence level to push for something while having a losing position. 

This is actually not true, in elite levels unintentionally losing the queen is an instant resignation unless there is a scheme behind it. Professionals usually respect their opponent enough that they think losing a queen just ends the game on the spot.

This tells you a lot about how much of a devastating blow losing the queen actually is, it almost crushes every hope of turning around the game unless there is a plan behind it (or the time control is bullet/blitz).

Losing the queen is just so devastating that the sheer material disadvantage causes the player to resign after having the blunder.

People resign after losing their queen because they want to save energy

Another reason why I think people resign after losing their queen is because they don’t take the game seriously, trying so hard for a “hail mary” can is considered a waste of time.

Some people just prefer to start over rather than hold a losing position which would drain their energy.

Most people who play chess are only in it for the “fun”, they don’t really like to test themselves and undergo a torture holding a losing position when they can just start a whole new game.

It makes sense to resign after losing a queen if you are not playing for competitive purposes.

Why waste time trying to convert a relatively losing position that will be losing 95 times out of 100? (maybe even lower depending on time control).

Losing in chess is not the definition of “fun” in fact it is the opposite, it is one of the most regret-inducing activities that you can do.

When you win in chess you will have this light feeling of delight having accomplished an incredible thing, losing on the other hand is just as devastating as it is fulfilling when you win.

People would rather call it a game and just try to win the next game in order to compensate, it is more fun that way.

Also not everyone can afford to play chess for consecutive hours every day and they can only do so at limited occasions, people have to be picky on which games they want to fully commit to.

Players resign when they lose their queen since they only want to fully play a game that is actually worth their time.

People resign after losing their queen because there is nothing at stake

Most people who play chess do it online, this is a bad place to do competitive chess since almost nothing is at stake.

Competitors in a tournament are more willing to play even being down a queen since there is a prize/honor stake, online games in comparison are much more arbitrary.

Imagine if you were leading a tournament and in the last round you managed to be down a queen for some reason, would you resign and just call it a day?

Of course not, you will go full-on kamikaze mode to try and win the game since there is something at stake.

In online chess there is almost nothing to lose (aside from arbitrary rating), which is why people can just choose to resign after losing their queen without having to face any emotional consequence. 

Competitive players on the other hand will do everything in order to win the game (since there is a prize/honor at stake).

Earlier I have said that elite players usually just resign after losing their queen, but this is because losing a queen for no reason is unacceptable at the top level. I am talking about competitive players who are not in the elite levels but want to win.

People resign after losing their queen because their opponent is too strong

Some people think that a player should not resign just because they lose their queen since their opponent might become too confident and play relatively worse. 

This might be true in lower rated-games but this kind of logic does not work against elite players, imagine playing down a queen against Carlsen.

Even Magnus would struggle against an old Kasparov if he is down a queen. It is not just improbable, it is almost impossible to win against a player who can capitalize a very small advantage (much less a queen positive).

I did a side by side between Carlsen and Kasparov in this other article. I seek to find who is the best chess player of all time.

The only exception is of course with bullet, however such time control does not really encompass the nature of chess so it doesn’t count that much. When the opponent is too strong it makes sense to resign since the material disadvantage is just too much.

In lower-rated games an opponent may not be able to convert a queen positive. However this will unlikely be the case to a titled player, the game will just be torture. 

Now you can choose to be hard-headed and still try to win (which is completely fine) but resigning is just as understandable. Playing while being down with so much material can be worthless if you are not looking for a learning experience.


The queen  is the most powerful piece in the game, losing it via a mistake/blunder is such a heavy loss that it warrants a complete resignation.

People would have a very hard time holding the losing position and they probably would not do it unless something important is at stake (prize/honor).

I think that you should try playing on something like that on occasion, holding a losing position will being down in material can help you improve your overall resilience.

If your opponent resigns after losing their queen then you now know the reason, thank you for reading.