As I said earlier this was a daily game. Probably why the OP's opponent was frustrated. Then again, it's no good complaining that the other guy should resign if you then give stalemate and fail to win.
Playing to a stalemate bad sportsmanship?
Sort:
Gone.
In fact I remember even @Hikaru stalemated an 800 rated opponent on his stream a while back when he was trying to show off with his premoving:
It was unrated so he just laughed it off.
Thank you everyone for the different perspectives.
Nov 26, 2020
0
#29
ztm200
You might want to submit this game to New in Chess for the Swindle of the Year award.
https://www.newinchess.com/new-in-chess-swindle-of-the-year
I'm not sure if it would qualify*, but, what the heck. You might as well give it a try.
*In general, a swindle occurs when your position is totally lost, and you find a way to trick your opponent into a draw or loss.
ztm200 wrote:
I'm sure this question has probably been asked innumerable times, but I am new to the game and haven't come across it in a search. Is achieving a stalemate when you are obviously losing considered bad sportsmanship? I had a game where my opponent was clearly destroying me (by the time the game was over he had a +22 advantage since he was able to promote a pawn at the very end), but I wanted to play through the endgame so in order to continue learning, try out some endgame tactics I have looked at, and see what strategies he used. In this game I was able to secure a stalemate which I was pretty surprised I had been able to do. As soon as the game was over my opponent had told that what I had done was "pretty low". Is the case? In the limited reading and learning I have done I didn't even know what a stalemate was a month ago) stalemates are presented as viable goals if you are in a losing position. Is this wrong? I certainly want to practice proper etiquette in my games.
If you achieved a stalemate, you didn't lose. Feel free to play out all of your games. There is nothing wrong with the act of playing a game to completion. Always be reasonable of course. For instance, if you see an obvious checkmate coming, while you don't have to resign, if you know the moves you are making, just make them. Don't sit there and do nothing just for the sake of dragging it out. Never feel rushed to make a move faster than you need to, but don't drag out a move longer than you need to either. There will always be people who get upset over nonsense. Don't worry about them. As long as you aren't being malicious yourself, it's fine.
If you think a game has reached it's conclusion for you, resign. But if you want to play something out, drag the game out with as many on-board delaying tactics you can muster, you can do that too, see if your opponent slips up. Be aware the time you spend to do this is time you could have spent on a new game, or something else entirely, and make your choice accordingly. Sometimes it is worth it to drag it out, and other times it will not be, but that's your judgment call to make. Whichever way you choose, there is nothing wrong with making either call in an honest, nonmalicious fashion.
It is bad sportsmanship because it just wastes time and doesn't take any skill.
If a stalemate was the result then it obviously would have been a big mistake to resign.
Jul 24, 2024
0
#33
If you are playing a rapid or blitz game, trying to force a stalemate to save a few points isn't a big deal to me. If I'm playing a daily game I think I would resign before I got to that point and not waste the other player's time.
At my level, shuffling your lone king aimlessly to annoy your opponent and goad him into queening all five of his remaining pawns, then hoping for stalemate because he doesn't realise he is covering almost every square on the board is a perfectly sound and respectable end- game strategy 
Jul 24, 2024
0
#35
The stalemate is a resource, like the triple move repetition rule and others. A resource that those who are losing can use, and which those who are winning must guard against. If you get caught by the stalemate, you don't deserve to win...
The stalemate is part of the Rules of Chess, which means that the Rules themselves affirm the sportsmanship of playing to the end, if for example there is a possibility of stalemate. Experts don’t fall into a stalemate, but we do. Chess is a game of concentration as well as skill. You have to be focused until the last move, not until the moment you think you have won.
Stalemates happen all the time at the lower levels so by all means play on and force your opponent to checkmate you. I'm 2100+ and even I have stalemated lower rated opponents on occasion when I'm low on time and don't recognize that none of their pieces can move. I'm never upset at my opponent in these situations. I'm always upset at myself for being careless.