My new rule about resigning.

If my opponent won't resign an obviously lost position, I will promote every pawn on the board to a bishop. Then I will declare an era of peace and harmony for at least 30 moves and not mate him till he's within 5 moves of a draw. I might throw in a rook just to be on the if all my bishops are of one color. I have a current opponent complaining about it, but he still won't resign. He'll have to wait till about move 100 before I end it.

My motivation for this came from a game between Nakumara and a computer engine that lasted 300 moves before he pulled off a mate with 8 bishops. I can't post the game from my phone, but if someone would do that for me, I'd appreciate it.

I don't understand why people complain about mass pawn promotion. The losing side is free to resign at any point. It's the player who is overwhelmingly winning who is forced to keep making moves.

That said, it is sometimes rude. The player who is first to treat the game as a joke (overtly not playing their best) is the one being rude. At lower ratings it's hard to tell if they're still trying their best when they don't resign in overwhelmingly lost positions, but sometimes they just don't understand, and when you promote a lot against a person like this you're the one being rude.

 

This epic game was my inspiration:

Maybe they don't know how to resign, or maybe they don't even know that resignation is a rule.

When I was about 800 strength, or after I'd played chess for a few weeks without even knowing some of the rules (including en passant), I didn't know about resignation. 

An 800 player (I'm talking about OTB level) can probably get to 1400 daily chess here if they try hard. 

So it's not very nice. You should instead ask them, in chat, "If you don't resign, I will make you suffer. If you don't know how to resign, please notify me, and I will assist you. Thanks."

Or something like that. 

For practice, you can do this even when you're not in a winning position. 

He has one where he does a lot of knights too.

Another fun way is to promote so that you have two knights, two bishops, two rooks, and a queen. Then set your pieces on the starting squares heh.

If I can be bothered to do this, which is rare, I pick knights so I have a 'cavalry'. I almost had 9 one time in a 960 game, all my pawns plus a knight vs lone king. I promoted 3 or 4 then my opponent resigned.

These are great ideas.  I doubt I will ever have 8 pawns to promote, but if I ever do, damn sure I'm going to set the board back up all over again.

Cherub, I never claimed to be a nice guy.  I did tell this guy, in hi own language, that I would do this if he didn't resign.  I'm not angry that he won't resign.  But I will make him wait till the last second for forcing me to play it out.

Maybe one day someone screwed up and stalemated him. There is always a chance. Sounds more like you're just letting yourself get trolled. He knows he can resign. He's making you play longer than necessary. Ultimately, you're dragging it out. All he has to do is move back and forth. 

There a point in the game when a resignation should be presented but you never know and the stronger play could make a mistake. Hang on but know when to resign.

"I might throw in a rook just to be on the if all my bishops are of one color."

 

Welp:

https://www.chess.com/live/game/2135699275

how do i checkmate with 4 white square bishops and a rook? xD

[COMMENT DELETED]

If it's going to be a pretty mate, I say let's play it out! I used to get so frustrated when I'd study a GM game and they ended it 5 moves before a mate and I couldn't figure it out. But if you're just going to be doing rolling rooks with 2 queens, it's safe to resign the game. I've seen people criticize Byrne for not resigning the game of the century. I think it was a nice tip of the hat to let it go till mate. Some opponents just might be too new to understand when mate is really easy. IDK. I'm playing 100 games right now. If you're going to make me play out a game where I'm up like 10 points of material, then I'm going to take my sweet time and make you wait as long as possible.

Also, if anybody needs a love marriage specialist, I think about 100 are available on this forum right now.

Beware of mass pawn promotion. One of the high school kids I coached was an awful OTB player until I finally convinced him to stop playing cheap traps and work on solid openings and tactics.

Pleased with his new-found chess strength, about USCF 1200, he decided to humiliate an unrated newbie in an early Swiss tournament round by seeing how many pawns he could promote to Queen before ending the game.

The fool ended up with so many attacking ranks, files, and diagonals that he stalemated his opponent! I was Tournament Director of that tournament and was too busy to see what he was doing until some of my team's players called me over and asked me to verify a stalemate.  I looked at the board with about 6 Queens and immediately realized what my fool had done.  It was a stalemate.  I am slightly red-green colorblind but even I could see he was green in the face afterward!

I lost a game once because I messed with a guy like that. He was way lost, but played on and moved once every two minutes or so. I was half paying attention and let him promote his single pawn with check, skewering my queen and lost. Since then, I just mate guys like that the boring way. Take their last remaining pieces, and basic mate them. Just win the game and let them be poor sports. No need to waste time on guys like that. Take the high road

When my opponent won't resign I like to do the Bishop + Knight + King checkmate.

That is ridiculously passive agressive, they have the right to play it out.

I remember a blitz game in which my opponent lost almost everything early on, but kept resisting; I also decided to fool around, and the game ended up with a stalemate after the 3th promotion or so. The best way to play is to always make the best move you see, regardless of anything: if you have a fast easy mate, then go ahead and do it; no need to play 100+ wasteful moves just to make a point to a random person on the Internet.

MayCaesar wrote:

 

+1