*Edited title This made me extremely unhappy with my chess performance

Move 31 should have been Ne4 32. Kd1 Qc3 33. Ke1 Qd2 34. Kf1 #Qf2

You clogged up your own area, your minor threats should come from further away

I analyzed a mate just now in a different line that only required the king and queen. It's just irritating when people are totally losing and they play this "neener neener" stuff with their king.

Why did you resign?

You were Black...  This was not a checkmate position for White

I'm really not joking. 

Your a very crappy person Darth_Doom.  Maybe you should quit life.

Why would a game like this make you want to quit chess? If anything it should make you want to play more...

There's a quicker mate than that.

27... Qxf4+ 28. Ke2 Qe3+ 29. Kd1 (Kf1 Qf2#) Nf2+ 30. Kc2 Qd3+ 31. Kb2 Qb3#

To Citadel_7,

My advice would be to study more. The reason you couldn't pull off the mate was because you can't see the mating patterns, and you can't see them if you don't know them. This line follows three of your moves exactly, so you were quite close, and I'm certain that if you had seen the Swallow's tail (a.k.a. Guéridon mate) mating pattern that my line ends in, you would have played Qd3+ and then Qb3# and thus wrapped up the game. There are no end of good books that will teach you endgame theory, or you can read the articles here at chess.com or look up articles on Wikipedia. My advice would be to get Vukovic's The Art of Attack in Chess as a general resource, because it doesn't just teach endgames, but also how to attack in the middlegame, but these middlegame attacks are so often based on mating threats. Knowing those is the foundation for good attacking chess.

Good luck!

In the final position black plays Rd7 and wins by forcing the white queen to move. As far as I can tell it is then a forced mate for black.

Your point is?

If he was about to lose on time, then yes, he should quit playing chess because this was a 60/0 match.

I honestly believe that we are wasting our time trying to discuss tactics with this player OP.  The fact is that he lacks the inner fortitude to pull out a victory in 60/0 match where time is not a factor and he literally has ample time to study the board.  Even with all that time, he still could not see a very basic checkmate and when threatened he just gave up and resigned. 

Does that sound like the type of player who is worthy of any form of assistance?  

I really don't feel that this player is worthy of advice.  So I plan to delete my analysis above and the OP really should consider quitting chess and just stop wasting other people's time already.

If you feel that you need to justify why you should quit playing chess, then allow me to assist you.

(1) You don't know how to secure a checkmate

(2) You panic and quit too easily.

(3) Even with unlimited time to make moves and to study the board, you are incapable of seeing openings or advancing your pieces properly.

(4) Even if you spend the time to acquire knowledge regarding chess, you will not likely be able to pull the trigger when it counts.

(5) Chess really is not for everyone.  It's a fact.  If you are incapable of winning in a 60/0 match when you are in a position to win easily, then perhaps chess really is not for you. 

Some people may say things like it is never too late to learn, but they're lying.  If you don't have it in you, then it's likely that you never will.  You need the killer instinct to put it figuratively and frankly you don't have it.

Sorry to break the news to you, but some people are not very good chess players and they will remain so because chess just is not their game.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I actually think that hearing someone tell you that fact is what you are really looking for in this post.

If you feel strongly about quitting chess, then stop talking about it, just quit.  

Citadel_7, if you're going quit chess, don't do it because of what Darth_Doom told you. Don't give him/her the satisfaction.

People engage in hobbies because they are interested in them. Almost everyone who sticks with chess does so because they like the game. This is the fundamental requirement. 

I understand Darth_Doom's point-of-view, although I'm not as generous as him/her. If only skilled players are allowed to play chess, I set the bar at 2200. Nobody below 2200 should continue to play, which would include everyone here. To bring this analogy into other activities: nobody who isn't already drafted in the NFL should be playing American football, nobody who isn't drafted into the MLB should play baseball, and nobody who is not qualified for the Wimbledon should play tennis. I don't care how much people like their sports, if they are not near Olympic-level, they should not be participating at all.

There is a reason people start to play chess. They do it because it is fun. That is why you should keep playing chess. You shouldn't just quit chess. If you keep losing, study and you will beat everyone and you will have fun again.

Also, salmiakki, sports were created so people could have fun. If everyone followed your point of view, they would have to create a new title for sports that only talented people can play. If only masters and up could play chess, how could people become masters at chess if they couldn't practice when they were beginners?

Qa7# isn't a threat?