Is It Insulting to Play for a Stalemate, Time Win, or Draw?

If you've got a situation where your opponent has say a king and Queen left...and you've got a king only (basically situations where they "should" win) and you stretch it out to force them to checkmate you, is that considered sleazy IF:  

i.)  they are short on time

ii.)  you want to "trick" them into a draw/stalemate

Technically, if they play it right they should win in those situations right?  But I find MANY players have trouble finding the right combination to checkmate with only say a king and queen (when I've only got a king).  I will often play on and I find I can win on either time or them accidentially stalemating the game.  

Of course, against a GM it's stupid.  But I play internet chess and people don't always play like professionals and will mess up these things.  I couldn't imagine doing that if I were a pro and it'd probably be insulting.  But what about online or even in real FIDE rated competition at the lower levels?   

I would say playing for a stalemate is fair and I actually like when someone plays on because it gives me a chance to practice my endgame and avoiding those stalemates. I have accidently stalemated far too many games unfortunately but each one helps you to see it more clearly the next time. Playing for a time win, well I wouldn't feel too happy with the victory personally, but perhaps the opponent should have played more quickly and taken their time in to account. Another lesson learned. What's more important to you, a victory or being gracious in defeat?

No. If your opponent can't win, he doesn't win.

No..it is not insulting to keep playing ...why not ?...it is perfectly fair...

Maybe if the player is rated below 600, it might be worthwhile to play on against king and queen versus king. Anyone legitimately rated higher than that should easily be able to checkmate you in that situation, and you are simply wasting your time and other player's time. It is also insulting and unsportsmanlike because it is tantamount to telling the other player that he is a beginner and does not know how to mate in that situation.

Ask yourself how you would feel if the other player did not resign in that situation. Would you be insulted and/or irritated? What if you were playing a 2 hour match (I.e. each player has 120 minutes to make his or her move), and the losing player had 90 minutes on the clock, and insists on running down the clock rather than resigning.

Very few people (if any) learn anything from playing a hopeless position. Consider it a loss and move on.

It's okay to lose. 

I use strategies like moving the king carefully to induce stalemate or running the other player out on time, and though they are less honorable than winning, I still think they are valid strategies.

Everyone at your level should know how to mate with queen and king.

I don't think it's insulting unless you're obviously just wasting time. Many sub-1100 players may not know that mate. There may be a 10% chance of you getting away with a draw. In that case, you should definitely play on.

Instead, if you are playing a relatively strong player, then it's probably insulting.

No, I cannot bring myself to resign even in a hopeless position. It says something when a better player has to chase you all over the board. It must take some of the satisfaction out of the game for them.  I usually settle for that...

If he's low on time it might be worth it. If not then it depends on your rating and who you're playing against. Although that mate is simple there are a lot other simple ones that are frequently misplayed anyway.

But getting insulted seems a bit ridiculous. It's a board game and one guy wants to play on. When someone gets a title then maybe they can go on about the simplicity of certain things although I doubt they'd have to.

It's a player's perogative to play on in any position.

The usual sudden death time limits as opposed to the new "Fischer Timing" do lend themselves to borderline questions of what is sporting and not. I mean it is very frustrating in a opposite bishop and one pawn ending where the superior side, perhaps having more time wins by inventing various permutations of his king and bishop to avoid three fold repetiton....but perhaps just treading water in a complex postion when well up on time is just the same.

The clock is the 33rd piece. I would like it's importance removed by using digital added on time increments. Over the board too, with sudden death, the banging down of pieces, knocking them all over the place and readjusting, to me, places the competitors in a postion of playing in an undignified fashion in this our noble game - as well as making arbiting decisions more difficult.

I was having a game and a nice friendly chat with someone in Canada, when I took his queen (sacrificing my Q in the process). He then made a comment that it was not OK to sacrifice my Q that way because the game loses its purpose.

Is he right?  Is it bad manners to go Q for Q?  

I noticed he was pretty handy with his Q so I resolved to get rid of it should the opportunity present itself even if it cost me my Q.  He was in front on time and points when I took it - but the situation swung my way when both Qs were absent.

Bearing in mind that the computer doesn't hesitate to swap Q's

Love to hear anybody's thoughts on this

Des

Anybody should be able to premove mate with a king and queen provided they are above 800.

I consider it LAME.

You'll be surprised. I'm 1600 and I'm not. Guess what, I also think you're talking sh** and it's not even possible because you're too likely to lose your queen or stalemate without looking which direction the opponent king moves.

Haters gonna hate.

Players that get angry at the way others play (clock is part of the game) are rude.

I personally only resign when the position is to painfull to play. If it is a move or two to mate I often let it play out because I would like to see it as it helps my my pattern reconition for the future.

Usually i resign in a lost positions if I'm confident that my opponent will have no problem to finish the game. If, for some reason a stalemate or draw by repetion/time its possible, its legitimate to go for that.

What many novices dont understand its that stalemate & draws are part of the game and its duty to the winning side to avoid to fall into them. If there is hope fora tricky combo/line that allows me to avoid the loss i feel morally committed to do my best to try achieve that exacly as  committed to play my best in the early stages of the games.

Time its part of the game, so if an opponent waste all his clock to reach a favourable position, but dont have enough time left to throw the last blow, he's no better than those that move too fast and get a losing position because he missed a tactic.

this has nothing to do about being lame, Its about to try to achieve the best result in a certain situation. If a draw its possible means that the "winning side" its still not that "winning" after all.

It's perfectly fine to play on for a stalement, time-win and/or draw.

If you have winning material you should be able to win it.

Therefore do it. "Theoretical" means nothing if you don't know how to seal it. Until that clock runs out of time, you actually achieve checkmate or it ends in a declared draw/stalement, you play on.