Evidently I violated the Good Sportsmanship policy for punishing those who refuse to resign.

Amazing. Someone on Chess.com with a working brain.

I kept offering draw and he kept declining. Then in this position, I offered draw again. And he accepted. Because he sees that I'm just going to take that pawn and it's a draw. #NeverResignGang would surely decline the draw again.

Someone resigned earlier and it eats at me because I don't really feel I won.

I didn't see a blunder.

I still don't get whats so hard about pressing the resign button instead of abandoning, you lose the same amount of points either way I'm sure? The latter is not just bad sportsmanship, its griefing.

I have learned to take this positively. You crushed their soul. They are so humiliated and angry that they throw their phone or slam their laptop shut, they can't bring themselves to resign.

Oops, I resigned. He set up the Noob Mate and I thought it was over. I guess my application to the #NeverResignGang will be rejected.

No. You are uniquely adept at finding other options. When it appears checkmate is the only remaining option you somehow find a way to avoid it and instead try for stalemate. Usually that entails needless promotions and pointless time wasting delay moves.

So, let me recap: You're mad at them for wasting your time, so you waste your own time and theirs even harder? Logic?

The context was a game I was losing, not winning.

Somebody does something I do not like to me, and so I respond by getting even. Doing so isn't a waste of my own time because it's fun to promote everything to horses and toy with them.

This thread needs a FAQ, which people are required to read before they post in it. So they don't drop in thinking they are saying something new and clever, which has actually already been said and responded to 127 times.

This post has been promoted to a horse, flogged to death, then flogged some more.

I don't think that's unfair. Checkmating the opponents who are in losing position doesn't take long, but in some situations ,yes.

Forexample if they take too long to move that's very unfair.

But in the blitz and bullet and daily it's not any problem. A few days ago I won a bullet game on time when my opponent was in a M1 position with a huge material advantage and I couldn't stalemate bcuz I had pawns. Or some opponents played with me and I lost all my advantage at the last seconds and lost on time.

Also stalemate is not far when having a lonely king and opponent has a large material advantage.

But some people in bullet, (idk why they do it :\) spam closing and opening the chat and prevent from abandoning and lose their time and resign or lose on time before the 5th move and I win. I have never understood why do they do this!

@22289d you could not force anyone to resign It is there choice that they want to play further or resign

Thank you for this unique and insightful contribution. After 79 pages, nobody ever said anything like that. You are truly a deep thinking scholar of chess. Bravo.

Gik tal!

To the death!

And I like to PUNISH overpromoters by stalemating their queen pairs. That's why I UNDERPROMOTE to a single rook if that's all I need. I stalemated 2 queens and a rook plus pawns just last month.

You haven't won the game until you ACTUALLY win the game. GET OVER IT! I'd rather play another Klingon than a rage quitter ANY DAY.

Which begs the question, which is worse? A rage quitter who resigns when he loses a pawn, or a rage player who keeps promoting and delaying the game out of sheer anger?

It's great to see this post again about every month.

Maybe a rage player that promotes and delays out of spite and then starts (and keeps contributing to) a forum about how noble and justifiable their actions are.

This forum should be dead by now, but whatever.

We should first consider the perspective of the "rager's (who we will refer to as... Oen)" opponent (who we will refer to as Sven) in question.

We'll have two scenarios for two Oens, one where Oen, in a fit of anger, resigns after losing a pawn, with the justification that being down a pawn in the endgame is a winning position most of the time (literally me), and one where another Oen decides to promote every pawn they have to knights, and keep the game going for as long as possible.

Now we come back to that 'perspective' clause from earlier. There are two big things most players want out of playing chess:

1. Having fun.

2. Winning, or playing for the best result (which usually overlaps with number one) by increasing your chances of victory (through legal means, of course).

Let's consider the impact each two scenarios has on these two objectives.

The scenario where Oen rage-quits immediately is definitely not fun. Sven comes in, ready to play, ready to have a little fun, but as soon as they win a pawn, the fun's over.

Sven is outraged, how dare they not play to win!? Seirawan dedicated an entire section of their book to playing a pawn down! Gahhhh!!

But it definitely fulfills the second objective: to win. Sven cheers up a little, he won? Nice! Time to get another dub, and they find another opponent.

Scenario two is neither fun nor fulfilling. Sven tries to play for stalemate, (might as well, the objectively best way to play for a good result is playing at all), and is ready to accept checkmate with grace (most of the time), but Oen just keeps promoting, promoting, and promoting, and Sven is definitely not having fun, and in the end, they already lost anyway, yet Sven keeps playing on until mate on move one-hundred and twenty-nine, still playing for stalemate, since it's once again the objectively best way to go.

Since scenario one fulfills Sven's second objective and leaves the first rather unfulfilling, but scenario two just makes Sven miserable in every facet, as they can't win (with accurate play by Oen), but they are also not having fun (aside from laughing at Oen's perceived stupidity)

So from the opponent (Sven) of the rager's (Oens) perspective, scenario two causes more misery than scenario one, and thus we can finally answer the prompt:

"Which begs the question, which is worse? A rage quitter who resigns when he loses a pawn, or a rage player who keeps promoting and delaying the game out of sheer anger?"

The rage player.

Side note: I read some posts that claimed that a winning side cannot stall, and this is far from the truth. This happens constantly in any other sport that allows stalling (as a legitimate or illegitimate method of attaining victory), and it can happen in chess, especially when it comes to flagging (purposefully timing out an opponent), as one method is to wait between moves so that the opponent of the 'rage player' has to make their move on reaction time, which decreases the already-must-be-low accuracy of their opponent.

This is an actually applicable form of flagging, by the way, especially over-the-board, and I myself have lost to it.