Please clarify the sportsmanship policy when under promoting against those who don't resign.

I have a question about the sportsmanship policy. The Sportsmanship policy states that it is against the rules to "stall to make opponents wait unnecessarily," I'm wondering if an authoritative source could clarify what constitutes a delay of game.

My question, specifically, is does it count as stalling if a player is winning the game by a lot, the opponent does not want to resign, and the player toys with that opponent? Instead of taking an easy mate, the player takes all of the opponents remaining pieces, promotes all of their remaining pawns to knights, and later checkmates the opponent. But does so without running down their own clock.

Does this qualify as delaying or stalling games? Is this a reportable  violation?

"does it count as stalling if a player is winning the game by a lot, the opponent does not want to resign, and the player toys with that opponent?" ++ No
"Does this qualify as delaying or stalling games?" ++ No
"Is this a reportable violation?" ++ No

If you want to try other forms of checkmate, like for example with knights, go ahead. Just be careful when playing, I know of someone who promoted pawns to knights and ended up in stalemate.

I did that once

As long as you are just playing on there really isn't anything unsportsmanlike.

If it's an easy mate, then it is you who is delaying the game, by not resigning.

As I understand it, stalling refers to situations where the player who is losing just drains their clock and makes the winning player wait for five or ten minutes to get their win. Not cool and not allowed.

In what you are describing, the player who is winning chooses to put off the win by toying with the opponent. I don't recommend this -- indeed, I rather frown on it as what Kasparov once called "a lack of chess culture." And I think such situations are best handled as an exercise in practicing how to deliver mate most clinically. But I don't believe it's what's meant by stalling. For one thing, the other player can always just resign if they want out of a game they're losing anyway. (The one case where I might make an exception is in tournaments, especially daily tournaments, if it's delaying the continuation of the tournament by weeks or months.)

A while back, there was an endless thread begun by a guy who liked to do this and got really self-righteous about it -- he was "teaching people a lesson" by toying with them as punishment for not resigning (which, in my view, is something they no obligation to do, all the more so if the person they're playing is acting like they don't know how to finish the job). A lot of people took exception with the guy's self-importance about this, and his expectation that his opponents owed him a resignation. But I don't recall anyone thinking he was breaking the rules.

A lot of people are taught to "never resign," simply because at the beginner level, there's always a chance that the opponent will get complacent and make a huge mistake.

Even if they do occasionally resign, they may still put it off as long as possible until they are absolutely certain you can finish the job.

So, if you start to "toy with them," it is understandable if they start to think "hey, maybe this guy really doesn't know what he's doing; there's a good chance I can get a stalemate if they're not paying attention" and end up continuing the game much longer than they otherwise would have.

The smart thing to do is to practice your skills in finishing them off as quickly as possible, such as by mating them with a flashy sacrificial attack or something - I mean, if you really have that much extra material you don't really need all of it. Make the end of the game enjoyable for both of you, instead of just prolonging the misery for both of you.

I agree. But this does not only apply to beginners, we are humans and even the highest rated GMs make mistakes. Instead of resigning which will definitely result in a loss, playing on may give you a small chance of draw or win, and low chance is better than no chance

hi

Not resigning are the ones stalling, but neither side is doing anything wrong as they are entitled to use the time on their clock. When you click for a 3 min game, you are agreeing to the possibility of the game taking the full 6 minutes. A player has the right to make whatever legal moves they want. What about people who aren't sure if there is a forced checkmate there so they just take the free queen, will that be considered "stalling" as well. Sometimes people make moves that result in simpler easier to win positions even if they take longer. Or maybe I personally find a knight + bishop vs king easier than a queen vs rook endgame, whatever. You have the right to make whatever legal moves you want and they have the right to not resign/make random moves/try to flag you, it's fair.

I remember this one.