Is this rude?

Didn't play through the game, your explanation says it all.... No, it's not rude. But give yourself a challenge, practice your N+B endings.... If you're afraid uoy might get into trouble, just hide a Rook somewhere to help out : )

Exactly. :)

Rude? thats questionable...but it is definetely poor sportsmanship.

What's the difference?  I'd say that poor sportsmanship is just a particular flavour of rude.

I disagree. His opponent could have ended his suffering by resigning.

The only thing that would make me call it poor sporting would be the unneccesary promotion of ever single pawn. One pawn, yes I understand. 2 queens are better than one. But you could have mated him easily without resorting to that.

Obviously it should have never gotten to that point, but from the previous play of the opponent, I am not surprised. He/She clearly is a poor player, perhaps younger, and learning the game. I personally hate resigning as long as there is even a small chance...people make mistakes, and I have won games where resigning was my first instinct but I stayed with it. Or sometimes I have not won, but gotten into a stalemate from a trigger happy player not thinking ahead.

Personally I would never do something like that unless the person insulted me earlier in the game, or was talking smack, or was rude. Then I would draw it out as long as I can, slowly twisting the blade into mate. Otherwise I play to win, and would not do something so unnecesary and possibly rude (depending on how the person feels about it). If I was ever as outmatched as the loser of this game, I would hope the superior player would make my end swift.

I think that the real show is reaching a won game and instead of promoting all of the pawns is to give mate in the fewest moves possible- that's the mark of a good player! Promoting all of your pawns doesn't show you're a good player.

If you're in such a hopeless position that the opponent can do what they like like that, it's probably a clue you should have resigned.

poor sportmanship.

Thank you!

 Well then it's a damn good thing I didn't say ANYTHING about trying to prove myself as a good player.

People who refuse to resign hopeless positions have no right to complain about how their opponent chooses to win. If you dont want to be humiliated, then resign.

It is rude, if the opponent's rating states that he is still learning basics. Why would you humiliate him and show him that you are indeed much better?

But if you are playing against opponent that knows well how to play chess and he still doesn't resign after he has only king left - then you shouldn't mate him as quickly as possible (I'm talking about casual correspondence games). You should turn the game into a challenging puzzle. Always give him just one square to move, set up conditionals and mate him with least material possible. Why make a game into something boring and annoying, if you can have a little bit of fun?

Sometimes I wish more players rated around my level wouldn't resign: http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=24468517

The fact that your opponent willingly played on without hope of winning or drawing tells me that they felt you deserved to feel the joy of checkmating them, so it is was definitely selfish (possibly a little rude) that you decided to continue torturing your opponent (kicking him while he was down, so to speak).  If you're just playing a friend for fun, then I can see how this would be fun (potentially for both players), but in club/tournament/online play, I would discourage such "challenges".

It was sadistic - did you enjoy it?  Maybe you are just too stupid to see the mates. 

Was it 'rude' to do what you did?  No,it was much worse than 'rude'...   It was inhumane.

White was willing to accept mate in one at move thirty rather than waste your time by interposing at e2.

Such a conclusion to the game was apparently not sufficient to satisfy your sadistic needs.

I urge you to seek professional help immediately.

If you look at it that way, then just the whole game of chess is violent and inhumane.

But I know that you all meant something else:

a) There is losing a piece, which is something that opponent will maybe be ashamed about, but this can't be sadistic, it's part of every game.

b) And then there is making him play all those moves (when he has only king left) while you just play with him like cat plays with barely alive mouse. Why wouldn't you just kill him already? Well, higher rated opponents know that it's better use of their time to resign and play another game. When they decide not to resign, they know in what they are putting themselves.

You made your opponent tap!

Exactly right. No further comments needed.

Win in as few moves as possible. Period. This is what all non-patzers do when they see a win.

I'm paraphrasing, but an old chess saying goes something like: "Never lower the standards of your own play to that of your opponent."

In other words - always make the best move possible and anticipate that your opponent will make the best reply, no matter who it is. If you have mate in 3, there is no reason to not play the sequence that accomplishes it!

i hope thay some day nations will decide upon who won the war playing ä

"whole game of chess is violent and inhumane.