In such instances it would be better to let your computer mate you with several queens, a couple rooks, etc. vs. your lone king.
That way, if there's anything to learn from such positions, you can do it to your heart's content and from either side.
In the meantime both you and your opponent would be freed for other games or washing the dog.
I thought playing a game to the end was a good thing. What if my opponent would have made a mistake? I might have been forced into stalemate and would have a draw on my record instead of a loss. It seems to me that this person was toying with me.
Well ok, fair enough you wanted to learn, but in general it is rude if you don't resign in a completely lost position, chances are he won't stalemate you.
And a queen, 2 rooks+pawns, well, no offense, but if you can't figure out a mate with that material(i.e. you need to learn how to mate with them), something is seriously wrong.
To be honest with you I don't blame him for underpromoting, I know you just wanted to learn, but really, you should have resigned
I thought playing a game to the end was a good thing. What if my opponent would have made a mistake? I might have been forced into stalemate and would have a draw on my record instead of a loss. It seems to me that this person was toying with me.
I have a similar policy - I fight to the very end, even though the position is complete lost. Sorry...I'm stubborn :)
But I do believe your opponent's behaviour was rude and unnecessary. OhJaime, if you can tell me the opponent's username, I'll be sure to teach him/her a lesson :)
well, the way I see it, if you consider underpromoting to be rude, then not resigning is certainly rude.
I thought playing a game to the end was a good thing. What if my opponent would have made a mistake? I might have been forced into stalemate and would have a draw on my record instead of a loss. It seems to me that this person was toying with me.
If you're playing at a level where a stalemate from that sort of position is a realistic possibility, then by all means play on.
See, KittyJones I wasn't going to name names but, you've done your homework. 
I don't agree that the players were rude. As OhJaime said, she is a beginner who continued the game to learn from it. And I doubt that her opponent was a Master player who would never stalemate, for example.
If I had been OhJaime's opponent in that position, I would have considered the rest of the game to be a "find the quickest mate" exercise, and I would have challenged myself to mate in as few moves as possible.
Thank you, Arbitrary_Name. That's what I was expecting my opponent to do. He/she could have ended the game before I was down to only my king. I thought my opponent would put me in checkmate but instead the game was prolonged. I had no idea it was rude not to resign.
I tend to agree with kco, both players were rude, there is no rule against prolonging the game as long as possible, but there is also no rule against playing until mate. If I was playing someone who didn't resign in a position as described, to be honest with you, I might think about promoting to bishops, knights etc as well.
There seems to be people who think that if a certain action/inaction isnt expressly forbidden by rules/laws that said action/inaction is permissible and shouldnt be questioned, afterall they arent breaking any rules/laws. I completely disagree with this point of view. There are many actions/inactions that are considered "rude/insulting" in chess ( and other games) as well as in life that do not break any express rules/laws.
I had no idea it was rude not to resign.
I think it depends on the situation.
If someone's playing a 10-days-per-move game and they're in an awful position but they won't resign and they take ~10 days to move, then that would probably be considered rude. But if it's a fast game and the person is in a bad position but is playing on to learn from it (or is playing on because they believe their opponent might blunder away the win), then that seems reasonable to me.
Here we go again, in this seemingly endless series of threads on the topic of resignation.
Reb, with all due respect for your level and experience, I cannot agree with your point of view: when you say "are considered 'rude/insulting," the question has to be who exactly considers it so? There is no book or official guidelines on "chess etiquette," so what you and others may consider rude/insulting are obviously not considered so by others. So, this issue remains, and most likely will continue to remain, a matter of personal taste, opinion and style.
I wounld,nt let the behavior of one person put you off, there is always the possibility that your opponent may want to practise his /her end game.
WTF? It's a game of chess. You don't control your opponent, they can do what they want. If they're playing moves and you aren't enjoying it, then resign. If they're playing moves that you aren't enjoying, and you think you are winning, then win already, or maybe chess isn't for you.
both players were rude, there is no rule against prolonging the game as long as possible, but there is also no rule against playing until mate. If I was playing someone who didn't resign in a position as described, to be honest with you, I might think about promoting to bishops, knights etc as well.
The correct answer is, what OhJaime did was NOT rude. (I won't comment on whether the opponent was rude.) IM Jeremy Silman teaches his students to play on to the bitter end, because that is the best way to learn. I don't always myself play until checkmate, but if I'm getting beaten, I have EVERY RIGHT to test my opponent's knowledge to the level I see fit, whether it's until checkmate or not. Too many people are thin-skinned and get offended by infinitesimal problems, and I, personally, refuse to bend my code of chess ethics to accommodate thin-skinned belly-achers. NM Reb is right in saying that some people enjoy stretching the rules to the point that it becomes ridiculous, and this is rude. But since the OBJECT of the game is to checkmate your opponent, how can proceeding until checkmate be rude? keeganomahoney is entirely missing the point: It's not that there's no rule that says one CAN'T play until mate. It's that there IS a rule that says the game ends at checkmate! Especially if the checkmate is elementary: instead of getting offended by it, why not just hurry up and finish it (if it's so easy) and just be done with it? Then nobody gets offended.
both players were rude, there is no rule against prolonging the game as long as possible, but there is also no rule against playing until mate. If I was playing someone who didn't resign in a position as described, to be honest with you, I might think about promoting to bishops, knights etc as well.
The correct answer is, what OhJaime did was NOT rude. (I won't comment on whether the opponent was rude.) IM Jeremy Silman teaches his students to play on to the bitter end, because that is the best way to learn. I don't always myself play until checkmate, but if I'm getting beaten, I have EVERY RIGHT to test my opponent's knowledge to the level I see fit, whether it's until checkmate or not. Too many people are thin-skinned and get offended by infinitesimal problems, and I, personally, refuse to bend my code of chess ethics to accommodate thin-skinned belly-achers. NM Reb is right in saying that some people enjoy stretching the rules to the point that it becomes ridiculous, and this is rude. But since the OBJECT of the game is to checkmate your opponent, how can proceeding until checkmate be rude? keeganomahoney is entirely missing the point: It's not that there's no rule that says one CAN'T play until mate. It's that there IS a rule that says the game ends at checkmate! Especially if the checkmate is elementary: instead of getting offended by it, why not just hurry up and finish it (if it's so easy) and just be done with it? Then nobody gets offended.
I see your point, but maybe the winning side would get offended if his opponent didn't resign when they had such an elementary checkmate.
Grandmasters as we all know are the best in the world at chess, and they all(well all that I know of anyway) resign, they don't play it out to mate. I know this doesn't mean other players don't have to, especially at much lower level. There is nothing wrong with playing it out to mate but I personally feel that it makes more sense to resign.
I do not get offended when I have "such an elementary checkmate," because I choose not to get offended. I refer to the thin-skinned people again. Instinctive reaction is to blame others when we get offended, but if I get offended, it's my fault because it's my choice.
Grandmasters resign prior to checkmate not only out of respect for their opponents but also because being checkmated carries a stigma; it's "embarrassing" to be checkmated. In my opinion, it's a squeamish philosophy. A loss is a loss, however it is effected.
I was just playing Live Chess. I was losing pretty bad but, I'm a beginner so I decided to play the game to the end instead of resigning to learn tricks in the end game. I was down to only my king; my opponent still had a queen, 2 rooks and a few pawns. My opponent then began to try to promote his/her pawns while I could only make a handful of legal moves. He/she promoted one pawn to a bishop. After that I resigned. Was my opponent's behavior strange or just plain rude?