My personal belief is that he pointed to the ninth move because at that point it was quite obvious to even the most mediocre player that the rook too was lost.
Being a little more experienced in the chess game I feel I should tell you that I don't think that playing a clearly lost game is going to improve neither your skill or that of your opponent.
I think the rest of the game was a waste of time on both parts, the fact that you already know that many here agree with me should convince you of the veridicity of my statement.
You were in your rights to continue the game, no doubt, but it would have been more gentlemanlike to give up.
As for the level of his education I don't think the game and the chatting alone can make conclusive proofs of that, I fear you will have to add more evidence if you want us to reach a more reliable judgement in that area.
At move 36 he says to me, "Just resign You're wasting my time." And then subsequently, "You should have resigned on move 9". Actually he should have said move 11.
So really my only question is, Do you agree or disagree with him? I thought it would be useful for educational purposes to see what percentage of chess.com members actually agree with him.
I probably won't read much of the thread at all except to tally votes here. I'm not a very good chess player, that's a given - no need to point that out. That's why I hardly ever post. So just answer the question, that would be great.
Its incredible to me, that he saw this 25 minute game as some sort of imposition I imposed on him because I did not grant him his rightful win when he gets a piece up. Will this delusion live forever at chess.com? Enquiring minds want to know.
Oh, also I asked him what his education level was, and he said he was going to Berkeley. So as a second question you could indicate if you think he does.