Pawn Promotion Etiquette

I was just playing in a standard live chess tournament. First round I was paired with a much better opponent. They had a bishop and a pawn to promote and promoted to another bishop, just to try to checkmate me the hard way. I asked why they promoted to a bishop, they answered that it was for fun.

I don't find that to be fun. You can practice your impractical endings against a computer, not purposely put yourself in such a position against another person. Agreed? Is this proper etiquette?   

Well it's their move to make, and perfectly within the rules to do so. If the opponent wants to prolong the battle for the fun of it, you could indulge him or resign.

lol.

It's your choice to be rude and not resign just as much as it's their choice to be rude and play a fun mate.

The main difference is you can end the game at any time by resigning while they have to play the mind numbing mate.

If you are not going to resign in a completely lost positiong you opponent may as well make it an interesting endgame for them.

Position wasn't entirely lost until very near the end. I was planning on resigning after they promoted to a queen.

Also we were playing in a tournament so any unneccisary (Don't tell me that immediate resignation is entirely neccisary) prolonging of a game could hold back more than one person.

I don't think the person is bad for it I just feel like it isn't appropriate etiquette. Bad enough to lose, worse to add insult to injury. Ignore it and resign is a fair solution. Just a matter of curiousity what you all thought.

Ok, here's my opnion. I personally think that it is ok for people to under promote, and as it is, it is not illegal in chess. Now, sometimes people do it just to annoy you, and that is not polite at all. I myself do promote to just a rook sometimes, or a minor piece, but I do know how to mate with those. But then again, when your opponent decides to underpromote they are ackgnowledging that they know it will most likely take longer to checkmate you, which if they are just trying to delay the inevitable mate, is not proper ettiquite.

It sounds like you were playing on in a completely lost position. The best choice would have been to just resign... you mention this was the first round. A much better option would be to resign and save your eyes for the next round. If you play on in a lost position you should want the guy to make suboptimal moves. (mission accomplished)

Now if the guy was a true punisher he would have promoted to an N and beat you in the B+N vs lone K ending. 

lol, tigerprowl5!  As I remember, in the World Series Bumgarner promoted himself to king, which you can't do in mere chess...

I would have been happy that my opponent was dumb enough to give me a chance for a draw.

No, its thier promotion and if they want to underpromote then thats thier call. Sounds like you are jsut upset that you took that underpromotion as a insult. But sometimes its the best choice.

My fave was promoting 3 pawns to knights to screw with someone who did not have the common sense to just resign.

I would have resigned on move 23 (the pin is forever and the unavoidable endgame is an easy win).  If you're really stubborn you could wait until 43.  Making him play B+B vs lone king (which is about as easy as king and rook mate) all the way to mate on move 74 is rude IMO.

This sort of thing is tasteless.  When you're winning, just mate your opponent quickly and be done with it.  The less time you waste delaying the inevitable, the more time you'll have to analyze your game.  That being said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with underpromoting for no reason, so if someone plays like this, you just need to accept it and move on.  

You should also consider that he may have been mad at you for not resigning (some players take it as a personal affront) and pulled a passive-aggressive stunt to get back at you. I guess I just don't get this mentality.  Why bother?  To "punish" your opponent?  It sounds sociopathic to me.

So you're saying that your opponent is supposed to be able to read your mind? He had a winning position, whether he promoted to a queen or bishop. If you didn't want to prolong the game you could have resigned earlier. After all, for a game to continue it takes two players, both of whom are willing to continue playing.

Their call to make.

Funny how often words like "tasteless" and "sociopathic" get thrown around nowadays.

I see it as respect in its own way.  I would never be mad at a beginner for not resigning.  I'd promote to a queen because they probably aren't sure how to mate with a queen and it would be useful for them to see.

But if someone who knows how to play is making you play on, I think it's obviously insulting.  I don't understand why it wouldn't be.  You both know the position is beyond trivial.

This is the part I don't understand (and it's not just you; it's a widespread opinion.)  I just don't see why someone would choose to take it as a personal insult.  Just finish what you started and don't let someone like that ruffle your feathers.

Playing on in hopeless positions often makes an opponent feel anger and insult so many of them will underpromote and drag the game out to anger/insult you in like fashion . Your position was lost by move 24 when you were 2 pawns down for no comp at all and then when you didnt resign after going a piece down there is no acceptable excuse for not resigning , especially against a stronger player . 

yeah, this was obviously insulting and tasteless sociopathic disgusting offensive behavior by your opponent and we are all so sorry for the wasted time... i mean what...