is it unsporting to get an extra queen in order to get a simple checkmate?

A recent opponent expressed irritation towards the end of our game. I had a rook and 3 pawns, he had a knight and a pawn. The simplest way (it seemed to me) was to promote my pawns, thereby giving me 2 x queens and getting a 'ladder' checkmate. He described this as 'a slap in the face' pointing out that I could have got a checkmate without the extra piece. The thing is, I was getting a bit short on time, and I'd been tilting all day and so I decided to go for the simplest win, without risking a blunder/stalemate. It never occurred to me that my play was unsporting - I just wanted the win. Does he have a point? Or is this sour grapes at losing?

https://www.chess.com/game/live/120336613441?username=johnnyerasmic

This game?

No mate, you beat him 100% fair and square. Part of the fun in games like this is to promote to queens and ladder mate, cos it's actually one of the easiest ways of checkmating your opponent without cornering yourself and potentially stalemating. Checkmate is, after all, the aim of hte game.

The person complaining is just a, em, well, complainer. Instead of complaining, he should really be studying the game to figure out why he lost ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Question he should be asking is why he allowed you to promote two queens, not why you did.

If you wanted to get really technical; he's right, you could've mated him with just the one queen. Answer to that: so? You had a pawn that you could utilise, so you utilised it. Congrats! He was possibly trying to bate you into stalemate which is actually quite easy to do in this situation.

Well done on the win, looks like it was quite a long game.

It is not unsporting in any way.

I imagine your opponent was irrirated at the loss and just made a peevish complaint.

The unsporting part is he didn't resign. The irritating part is when a player hops around the board with a King and one piece.

It's his fault he didn't resign beforehand if he didn't like the checkmate. You win with whatever way works that's within chess rules.

No, you're fine. GG!

You've done what strategically is correct.

In the middlegame, the priority is to checkmate the opponent. In the endgame, the priority switches from that, and becomes to PROMOTE A PAWN.

This is the most effective, risk-limiting and strategically correct way to play chess in the endgame.

Period.

You've done everything right. You were low on time and chose the most straightforward path to winning, minimizing the risk of blundering. The player who was the bad sport in this game was your opponent.

did you promote to 3 queens or just one? If you promoted to more than one queen that is excessive and makes stalemate more likely. If you just promoted one pawn to queen than that is what they should have expected you to do given the circumstance.

I agree, 3 queens is unnecessary and increases the chances of stalemate. In this game, there was an exchange of rooks, and I then promoted one of my pawns to a queen. His remaining knight was unable to prevent another pawn from promoting, so I was able to win with 2 x queens with a ladder checkmate. Maybe not pretty, but effective. And after a day's tilting I was grateful for a win

Who cares? I usually get a few extra knights if opponent decides not to resign

That opponent should be reported for unsporting attitude and verbal abuse.

I agree with your opponent!

You should be ashamed of what you did.

Your opponent should report you for being unsportsmanlike.

—————

Running low on time is your excuse?

With 13 mins left, really?

—————

The Double Queen Promotion?

You was clearly trying to Flex at the end!

—————

The End Game Time was close to 13 mins.

You didn’t checkmate till about 10 mins left?

Making the poor guy wait and suffer why you think about all the terrifying moves he can do against you with just a King??

Yeah, you are worst type of chess player!

—————

I hope you get Banned!

Who needs 2 Queens to checkmate with 13 mins left?

Give me a break!

I would tell you what I really think about you if it wasn’t for the fact I consider myself a Holy man!

Nah even 4 Queens is fine, 5 is a grey zone and more than 5 Queens then you're exaggerating.

Given everything you just said in your post, that last line did actually make me laugh out loud! 🤣

Mate, you need to sit back and take another look at yourself. You're anything but a holy man.

Btw, for the record, the game was 30 minutes long. 13 minutes is beginning to run shy on time, certainly - especially in an end game. It's a matter of perspective. It also wasn't an excuse, it's a reason.

Compadre_J wrote

"Yeah, you are worst type of chess player!

—————

I hope you get Banned!" 

Well, I suppose I did ask for people's thoughts...

I'd also like to clarify - my opponent wasn't in any way abusive, and he certainly didn't go so far as to suggest that I should be banned for taking 3 minutes to achieve checkmate with queens.

I've seen several players say that they switch off the chat function, in order to avoid hostility. I can understand this, I've only experienced aggression in chat once, while I've had dozens, probably hundreds of engaging chats with opponents, which has added to my enjoyment of the game.

That said, posting on the forum is a different situation - and I did ask what people think. So Compadre_J - thanks for your input

Leading onto another subject - what is considered 'running short on time'? Personally, I'm not great in a time scramble, I don't perform well if I make moves quickly. I usually play 30 minute games, and when I only have 10 minutes on the clock - well, somehow it seems to run down faster. Also, I find I need longer for moves in the end game. Somebody (Horowitz ?) observed that Chess is a game in which one bad move cancels out 40 good ones. Which I've done quite a lot

In the middlegame, the priority is to get to a situation where you have a rook and three pawns and your opponent has a knight and a pawn.