Anybody have advice on my end game? It was close, my opponent played very strong at the end.

So when you previously claimed you were prolonging the game to learn end game tactics from your opponents you were lying?
Also you do understand that unnecessarily prolonging games is against chess.com their tos?

When I have a queen, a rook and 3 pawns and they only have a king, and they do not resign, they are implying that I am a horrible chess player. this after watching me destroy them to get into that position in the first place. That's very disrespectful.

You might not agree - but that's ok. I find it disrespectful. And nothing you say will ever convince me it isn't.

I imagine you aren't the type of guy to read the chess.com fair play rules, which is fine I will just tell you them now.
In the fair play rules it says to play every game to the end and not resign.
You find it disrespectful that people are following the TOS of chess.com?

"oh but herpy derpy people stalemate all the time"

Ok what about when I call out checkmate in chat. I tell them, A3, checkmate. Resign. And they do not resign. I have mate in 1 and i show it to them, no resign.

People rated 1300 do not stalemate in that position. They're only logical argument would be hoping my internet goes out or I drop dead. Otherwise, they lose.

You either aren't reading those rules very carefully or those are some kind of tips for noobs, not rules. Nobody gets punished for resigning and it would be absurd if they did.

(Resigning after getting beaten badly. Resigning when you're ahead or it's very early is against the rules. That's not what is happening here.)

I don't get why you are strawmanning yourself.
Only person who ever mentioned stalemate in this thread is you, I don't get why you are lying about what I said.
Did you realize that you were losing the argument and instead of admitting defeat you thought the thing that would make you look more intelligent was obviously lying about what I said to not have to admit you lost the argument?
I also don't understand why you are asking me if people rated 1300 stalemate the position in the game, as you have already answered this question yourself in the second message in this chat with the text "I am still shocked that they resigned to be honest. 1300 players stalemate all the time in that position.".
Either respond to the argument I make or admit defeat.

These comments are hilarious. People think I'm actually trying. In the last one, I deliberately ignored about 20 chances to mate them.

All the seemingly bad moves I was making were setting things up to 1) avoid stalemate, 2) advance my pawns and get knights and 3) pin them in the corner.

Endgame circus tricks are a whole other level of strategy. It aint as easy as it looks.

Please show me the rules which say you can't "resign when you're ahead" or you can't "resign very early".
Attached is also an image of the fair play rules you agreed to when you first opened chess.com, it clearly states to play out every game you play and just for you I drew a big red circle around it.

Oh, it's coming. That is how people always justify not resigning. What other reason could there be? They are hoping for a stalemate.

At this point you got to be trolling.

If you get your rules from pop-ups in 32 point font, you are doing it wrong. Read the actual rules. It's not against the rules or they'd have to ban most of this site.

This dude is seriously claiming that every famous chess player on this site is breaking the rules whenever they lose, because the losses are all from resigning.

lol

Why do they have a resign button at all if clicking it is against the rules?

Check. Mate.

what???
This is the first thing you see when you open this app, you agreed to those 3 rules otherwise you wouldn't be able to play chess on here, the pop up literally says that these are rules and it also states that if you don't follow these rules and I quote "your account may be closed and labeled publicy as Fair Play violator".
I have shown you the rule that you are violating and your response is claiming that that specific rule somehow doesn't exist.
Interestingly you still haven't responded to any of my other points or shown any proof for the rules you claim to exist.
Almost like your entire argument is being run from the bs you can string together at the moment.

Ok, so explain why there is a resign button. It's against the rules to click it, but they feature it prominently in the UI. Explain that one.

Just for you with your "Check. Mate." I'll go over every argument in this thread you have chosen to ignore to not look more stupid than you already look.
1. You have never explained what advanced endgame tactics you were learning from K+B+R+c pawn+c pawn vs K.
2. You still haven't elaborated on you claiming that you were "toying" with your opponent, reason you won't elaborate further on that claim is because it directly contradicts your earlier claim that you were learning endgame tactics from the K+B+R+c pawn+c pawn vs K game.
3. You still didn't explain why you were lying about what I said and directly contradicting your earlier words of "1300's regurarely stalemating said position".
4. You still haven't shown the rules which say you can't "resign when you're ahead" or you can't "resign very early".
For me to take you serious I'd like for you to address all these arguments which you previously chose to ignore.
If you do not address these arguments you lose the argument by default because you aren't willing to argue in good faith.

Chess.com has millions of people signing up every day/week/month that have no clue how to even play. They give them some guidance when they join. Probably because a lot of them just leave and it makes it not fun for their opponents.

The specific wording of that guidance should not confuse you with what is actually required, when a logical interpretation is completely at odds with what you think it says.

Clearly, it's not against the rules to resign. I don't care what the pop-up says.

It's a rule but they don't actively enforce it, furthermore if someone has to leave all of a sudden without a resign button opponent would have to wait the clock out before being able to play another game.

1. i was being sarcastic. all i'm learning from these people is the lengths some people will go to avoid ever resigning. the only thing that seems to reliably work is to let my clock run down. then it gets boring for them and probably around 25% do resign.

2. i'm not sure what elaboration you are asking for. i find it fun to mess with people by promoting a bunch of pawns to knights and donating all of my pieces to them and then slowly delivering a rook checkmate. i think what you mean is you don't agree, that you don't agree does not mean i have not explained myself.

3. i was speaking to 'them' not you. more people will join this thread and a lot of them are going to be talking about stalemates. i was pre-empting those arguments.

4. never in my life have i seen a website say something is against the rules and give you a bright big button you can press to break the rules. and i'm quite confident, i will never see that. and that there is not one on this site. yet you claim there is. ok.

It is funny that in your first argument you admit to breaking another one of chess.com's rules, purposely prolonging the game for no reason and stalling are both not allowed.
For your third argument, I attached an image just so you can reread what you said and decide wether or not you want to stick with that obvious lie.

For your fourth argument I suggest you reread what I said because that clearly wasn't what I was talking about, you mentioned 2 rules during this argument and I'd like for you to show where on chess.com it says that what you claimed to be rules are actual rules.