Is this rude?

I didn't say they were in the right.  I just said they had the right.

Whats rude and disrespectful is when you only have a king and your opponent has a chess board full of pieces and you refuse to resign.

Not poor sportsmanship.  If I have an opponent who won't resign and I have a bunch of pawns, and I'm in the mood, I'll promote them all.  It looks cool on the board.    You don't get to see a bunch of queens running around very often.

It's nothing to do with being 'better' than your opponent, as it's just that individual game. If I somehow got a totally overwhelming position against Nigel Short (obviously never going to happen, but hey, we can dream) and he didn't resign, I'd toy with him as well.

But Nigel Short *would* have resigned and so it would never happen.

By the time you are in a position to toy with the opponent in such a way, they have had A LOT of opportunity to resign in good time. There's a big window there.

Anyway, I believe respect is earned, not simply granted.

With everyone supporting my antics, I obviously agree, but I definitely would not go so far as to say that I was trying to teach him a lesson per sé. It was a toying, challenging way to kill the free time that I had. Hell, he should've resigned at move 28. even. But there was no "lesson" involved, in my mind.

To the people of "It's rude/inhuman/sadistic," would you kindly share you thoughts in regards to the subject had my opponent been rated 200 points higher than me, rather than lower? I'm interested to see some rationale come out of this topic rather than the pedantic heresay of "protecting the noob."

Sorry, I have to say poor sportsmanship. Maybe your opponent hoped to learn something from watching you play out the win, at least before you started toying with him. I know when I was a 1200 I played out more than a few hopeless positions (drew or won a few of them) just to see how things were done.

And, no, I don't think him being 200 points higher would make it better, it has nothing to do with "protecting the noob."

Your opponent's rating is irrelevant, it's poor sportsmanship no matter who you do it to.

I'd equate your opponent's behaviour to driving slow in the fast lane and refusing to either speed up (find counter-play) or move to the slow lane (resign).  What you did, on the other hand, I see as equivalent to pulling in front of the slow driver and slowing down even more yourself to try to make a point to him about his behaviour.

Now who's the bigger jerk?

Terrible analogy. At any time the driver can pull over and you simply pass them. The analogy simply doesn't fit.

At any time the player can resign and you can simply wash your hands of the game.

Unless I badly miss my guess here I think the people who defend the guy who won't resign are NOT serious otb tournament players. In an otb tourney such people are usually really detested because you may not even be able to have lunch because there's so little time between rounds and you have some guy who drags a lost game out like this, using all his time and when the game does end you have maybe 15 minutes before the next round is scheduled. Perhaps you could have had 45 min or even an hour for lunch if he had resigned when his position first became hopeless..... I am primarily an otb player and tend to see these incidents in an otb light which ofcourse is different ( not as much an inconvenience ) from online play. Ofcourse in an otb situation like this I would mate him as quickly as possible so I would have some time left for lunch....

Certainly if your objective is to finish the game as quickly as possible this type of approach is counter-productive if nothing else.

I don't, but I'm generally inclined to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt for their initial refusal to resign and to not assume that they're doing it out of petty of spiteful motivations unless there are some clear indications to the contrary.

I'd imagine that once the nonsense with the underpromotions begin, though, he probably played on because he didn't want his opponent to have the satisfaction of knowing he was pressured into resigning.

 Not a good one, that's for sure.

Precisely. I would never endeavor myself into shenanigans as such OTB.

 Until he did resign.

Unless you're simply eluding to the actual German word... AVENUE Q is amazing!! ;)

This is a bad analogy, TheGrobe.  The OP didn't pull in front and slow down, he just blasted by him, smiling.

I'm currently in a game where I'm up two whole queens and a bishop after 17 moves.

My same opponent is also playing out a game a queen, a bishop and three pawns down where he will be reduced to moving his king from a1 to b2 to a3.

Have the time controls been made clear, as this matters to my post.

>:) 

No, if he had the game would have been over immediately.  The analogy fits because both are attempts to "teach a lesson" by showing someone the "error of their ways" at the expense of the expedience you're presumably after in the first place.