Is it unpolite to make three queens?

Olympian, I do simoultanously play chess and the selfapproval game. It gives me a boost to see succes and strenghtening. Compared to my strenght when I started here, I have grown a lot. It feels satisfying. I also like to play against GM´s, not to win (but ofcourse I try), but because I learn and grows strenght.

Sometimes you can have three queens and lose. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1739337 (it was a draw until black blundered on his last move)

Having many queens is not unpolite if your opponent has just a king because it makes it a higher chance to get draw.

Also you can win vs. 56 queens.

in bullet it happens alot..

I believe your opponent is impolite if he/she does not resign at that point.

I would be embarassed if my opponent let me have three queens.

I witnessed an unusual game with 5 queens between GM Joel Benjamin and GM Kamil Miton at the 2005 World Open in Philidelphia. I had never before seen so many queens in a GM game, although this tense situation did not last long -- multiple queens were exchanged off faster that the spectators' demo board could be updated.

+1

I have occasionally promoted to more material than I needed to win, sort of in a silent protest against my opponent's stubborn refusal to resign. But that's always been in online games where I have time to think. In OTB games, especially in time trouble, extra queens just means dozens more opportunities to stalemate. I wouldn't do it. Just go for the simple win.

I prefer to keep getting knights

Sounds a bit like my threequeengame. He only walked around on three squares with the king, while I walked pawn 2 to queening, and later pawn 3. Why dont he resign I thought, so I walked those pawns a couple of weeks, and guessed he waited for the stalemate.

The fact that you need three is the sad part

Eh. Personally, I feel like it is a little disrespectful but I also would never find myself in such a position where I am up against three queens because if I was losing that badly, I would have already resigned because at that point, it's not really playing to win but rather playing in the vain hope that your opponent will make a seriously stupid blunder.

So sure, I would agree that it is impolite. Disrespectful even. But I would never call you out on it or even make mention of it. Unless you asked, of course. 

Khans as you say the first impolite was the no resign

Maybe. But two wrongs don't make a right. Still, it is my humble opinion that so long as you are playing the game then you have the right to play it however you want. That includes playing even in a hopeless position or playing with three queens when you could have already won the game.

I didnt need three queens. I wanted them. My rating is above 100, and everybody with that high rating, everybody in this debate, are perfectly able to mate with only one queen and the king.

I didnt need three queens, I only wanted to look at them on my board, and play with them. Three digital queens, naked, but looking like crowns.They have a rare beauty, and they are the symbol of horrible3 danger. Three shining Queens, three female Kalashnikovdancers able to kill from the other side of the board. 

It's polite.

Enjoy

Maybe you are right. I started the game with 8 pawns, that in fact were beautiful and powerful Queens in disguise and footchains restricting their graceful moves. It is my duty as a gentleman too set them free. All eight. Lead them to the last rank, where they will get dress, crown, jewels and guns. From there, from the last rank, they will dominate with their full power and beauty.