Learn to resign gracefully.

Its good chess etiquette and respectful of your opponent. If you don't resign, don't gripe when this happens:

Did your opponent gripe?

Baloney.
In the above game I would have resigned before a single pawn was queened. Why? Etiquette.
Don't believe me? When was the last time you saw a GM level game end in checkmate? Its incredibly rare because they follow rules of mutual respect. And that's sorely lacking in modern society.

Others have griped about punishing an opponent by queening multiple pawns to achieve victory. They seem to think it's griefing. I think of it as teaching an opponent the unwritten rules.
Remember the Queens Gambit when Beth drops a queen to Mr. Schiebel and he won't let her play on? You resign. Because that's how the game should be played.

If your opponent didn't resign around move 40, it's unlikely they were perturbed by your four queens.

Which is to say, there is probably only an extremely small overlap between the group of people who never resign and the group of people who are upset when their opponents excessively promote pawns.

Shouldn't it depend somewhat on ratings? How about this game ? - https://www.chess.com/game/live/81473456675?username=bhod9212

If black resigned on move 95, he never would have never learned white doesn't know king and rook mate. At your level, of course you're probably right.

your not a grandmaster and on your level its normal that the opponent hopes for stalemate

Conquista

So they didn't gripe. You just pretended they did so you could "punish" them more even after the game. I hope it made you feel good to beat up on some kid five hundred points lower than you, twice -- first over the board, and then a second time in gloating about it afterwards.

Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't see anyone griping about people getting multiple queens. What I have seen is people rolling their eyes when some alpha male gets self-righteous about how badly they punished someone who didn't properly kowtow before their prowess.

FYI, many coaches instruct students never to resign, for a range of quite valid reasons, so it's entirely possible this person was just doing what they've been trained to do. In any case, resigning is something your opponent is welcome to do or not do as it suits them. It is not something that is owed to you.

your 1028 rated opponent might have been happy to last 75 moves against a 1556 opponent. win-win i guess.

sometimes research pays off

#4 if stalemate was a common thing in the GM level, they wouldnt resign, but they know that they're playing a pro player who will never do a silly mistake, so there's no reason to play a dead lost position. but you, my dude, you're not even 2k, and your opponent is 1k rated... so it wouldnt be an absurd if this game ended in a draw. I would resign tho, but I can understand him

It's not a matter of respect for the opponent. For the simple reason that the opponent can be considered a winner only when he gives checkmate. So as long as there is hope of a draw, it is legitimate to continue, because mistakes and blunders are part of the game, and in chess the one who makes the fewest mistakes wins.

Resigning is not due, it depends on the player. I personally resign because I recognize that the opponent played better and I am not interested in drawing thanks to a glaring oversight of the last minute, but those who are interested in the outcome of the game can legitimately continue to play, without disrespecting the opponent. Playing better doesn't mean winning.

It's a game.

JackBolsen,GMs resign cos no opponent stalemates at that level

I agree with you here, they know when the game is lost.

There may be a stalemate in some positions, but it's better sportsmanship to resign and move on.

That's nice. When you play thousands of games and stalemate a few AND reach 1600 rapid please let us know. Until then, I suggest you not throw rocks while living in that glass house.

If your opponent is playing on then they have no obligation to resign, in fact in higher rated games (such as those between grand masters) playing on is usually a sign of respect as you are allowing your opponent to end the game with a stylish checkmate. When you resign you are left guessing how the game would conclude. The only situation where your opponent can "resign gracefully" is if they are not planning to make any moves and decide to run down the clock. That type of stalling should be reported. Getting mad that your opponent isn't resigning and continuing to play is a profound waste of energy.

I'd settle for 1500 but whatever.

Even if ratings are yout primary goal, playing on in a dead lost position is almost always a waste of time. Sure, you'll occaisonally pick up a draw. But would all the time sunk into playing out loses be better spent in things with a better ratings return on investment, like analysis, tactics, or even starting another game?