Well, I think that you should'nt totally leave the pawns to rot. make sure that they can promote if you need to, but if you just run 'em up the board and promote, then you have more chance of drawing. believe me, i've lost a good deal of points that way.

there is no "rude" in chess - it's your job to push your advantage.

Promoting a million pawns is just as rude as the the guy not resigning. One would not have to happen if the other didin't. If you don't understand that you are lost then you can't know if If I do or do not need more material to mate you.

If I'm up a Queen and my opponent doesn't resign in a totally dead position with absolutely no counterplay...is that rude? Maybe.

I've been known to solve it by fetching two or three extra queens and then closing in for the kill. Not rude.

I think beginners should always play on until mate, but what if they aren't a beginner?

No, the inappropriate part is the TD getting involed over the choice of moves by the player. Unless he's the kid's actual instructor, he's got ZERO business scolding the kid over that.

http://www.facebook.com/TwinCityChessClub

Like it please

You think too much.  Those who are so new that they don't see playing on as rude will in turn also fail to see multiple promotions as rude.

As soon as they realize what's going on, they're free to resign at any time.  Or in other words, they can end the multiple promotions at any moment.

  There is a little difference between the examples you gave and the chess match.  In chess, resigning is a perfectly accepted and expected response to getting trounced.  I don't think that is true in the sports you mentioned, even though, I believe there is the option to forfeit the game.  If the loser of the chess match had not been taught how to resign, then it is hardly appropriate to lay that blame on the winner. 

The TD humiliating and discouraging the 3rd grade winner of the chess match mentioned above seems like it did call for action on the part of the parent. I guess it would have been better for the parent to take it to the organizing committee then to waste his time with the idiotic TD.

I don't see the issue for the one losing when the opponent "over-promotes".  If I was trying for a stalemate, that would be playing into my hands as it would be giving me a better chance for the draw.  If, by chance, the opposite is true, one can hardly hold it against the one "over-promoting" if doing so increases his chances for the win.

So, its either a help to the loser or a help to the winner.  No excuse for any QQing over this.

I don`t think it is rude. Look at the below position taken from my game. Why should it be rude to promote my g pawn and to win with two queens with no effort? I find it more interesting to spend my time thinking of moves in games where I do have to find good moves. If I played less games at the same time I would maybe see the point in mating without promoting a pawn. 

The child was playing bad chess (as has already been pointed out, the extra material makes a draw more likely) Bad sportsmanship? You bet, tho it's just an 8 year old enjoying himself. But if so, it's an issue for the parent, not the TD, who should have kept his mouth shut.

The thing about being humiliated is a non issue. If you don't have the sense to resign a lost position, you're humiliating your self.

I've been accused of over promoting. He protested when I regained my queen and already had a rooks advantage. Something about elegance, which I didn't understand.  But he was a bigger player than I, and the last thing I want to do is throw away a game because I disdained a promotion then made a mistake.

Anyone know what he meant by elegance?

You have my vote too.

I was always taught not to dish out what you can't take. If I have a gnat buzzing about my face and you think I have to squish it with chop sticks instead of a flyswatter, buzz off...

I very much agree with Reb. In otb play I resign a lost position as soon as it is apparent it is lost. Is it too much to expect the same from an opponent? A few times when the opponent has not resigned a dead lost position I have promoted one or more pawns hoping to drive home the point of just how hopeless his position is.

I think you are onto something but, you miss the idea that some people make fools of themselves...

An elegant solution is often contrasted to a brute force solution.  Elegance is associated with small numbers, surgical precision and cleverness while brute force is associated wih overwhelming numbers, blunt instruments and no need for a plan. 

But what he really meant was waah, waah, now I have no hope of scamming a victory out of this game.

Are we always really reduced to only elegance as our M.O. ?  I don't mind if I have to win ugly. If I have an obvious 5 move mating combination that involves promotion and two more that don't, but my opponent has three chances in each scenario to have to make me recalculate, a few more different times when he doesn't make the strongest moves, thus dragging the game out, I think I'll save my tylenol and go for the obvious.

To counter-balance my previous game, here's one I played this morning where my opponent went the extreme opposite end of resignation timing:

He and I had played each other before, so he knew I was competent enough to squeeze the full point. We had a crowd of people kibitzing (they had followed him as he was the highest rated player in the channel at the time), so I was glad to not lose in front of them :D

But anyway, I felt maybe this was a little too early. I'd have played on until the middlegame resolved into a lost endgame, and then resigned. My general policy for resignation is to play until my 'dangerous' pieces are gone (i.e. potential for lucky counterplay with rooks or queen), and then I resign once that happens.

Getting 20 rooks is really unnecessary. Just trap his king on one file and run the rook up and down the board. He should get the message then.