The finish of that game, RJ, shows exactly what can happen when one plays the erroneous 31.b5? and tries to promote too many pawns.
Exception to the rule. 99% of the time a person promoting their remaining pawns in a match is going to win. Regardless if they win or not, they are just being jerks doing that and they know it. Of course, I'm not talking about young newbies, etc.
This wasn't a social experiment, but it kind of turned into one. Just from the responses I can tell who has poor chess etiquette. Lol.
You can't. Lol.
I bet I could get 75% correct. Maybe I'll look back at their archived games. Lol.
I never said that a person had to stop playing and resign once they were in an unwinnable match. I was talking about people leaving the game instead of resigning.
Then I change exemple:
Personally I never promote more pawns if not needed, but if one wants what’s the problem ? That doesn’t hurt me in honor. Unlike you.
My point is that there isn’t a “code of honor” shared by everybody, nor a totally shared etiquette. So everything permitted by Regulation is lawful, like it or not.
I read that in 19th Century, according to the etiquette of that time, refusing a gambit was considered rude.
Imagine this exhilarating situation:
- e4
- ….., e5
- f4
- ….., Bc5
“Coward !!...”
Ridiculous, don’t you think ?
Chess.com is a server, open to all who want to play chess, each of which has his own way of seeing our game. What everyone must respect are the only SHARED rules, that is, the Rules of the Game of Chess, and the “house rules” ( the server politics ). There is no point in feeling frustrated. Exemple: personally I always resign in a hopless position, but if one want to continue to the end, what's the problem ? Everyone plays the way they like best.
Part of chess “etiquette” rules are questionable for many.
Well written. I never said that a person had to stop playing and resign once they were in an unwinnable match. I was talking about people leaving the game instead of resigning.