Sportsmanship

I got a question for you guys.

I was playing a game on live and the guy slowly starts winning. We wind up going into the endgame with him up a couple of pawns, one of them a passed pawn. At this point I think he wants me to resign, but I like to play out close endgames because I feel it makes me better at my King/Pawn play.

Once he realizes that I am not going to resign he begins talking trash and telling me about how much better he is and the like. I try to ignore but he just keeps going. I then turn off the chat and continue to play.

We get down to the end and he gets a queen up and instead of trying to win with the queen and knight for sport, he underpromotes his two remaining pawns to Knights.

This kinda just pissed me off, so I just let my time (15 mins) run down. I would never do this normally just because I was going to lose, but this guy really struck a nerve.

My question is this: Is what I am doing reasonable?

I've been through that already. The right think to do (in my opinion) is report the bad behavior to Chess.com; they will properly warn the guy and, if he repeats it, he will be banned from the site. I don't think your attempt to annoy him worked at all, and that's leveling you to him.

The answer is yes, don't let anyone tell you when to resign or try and bully you. You have to practice endgame situations to get better at them and, for me, its also good to see how certain endgame situations are played out. I think if someone wants to be play out a hopelessly lost position that's up to them. Frankly, I like it because its feels so good to put someone in mate.

concentrate on the pieces....not the words.

if you waste the other guys time you should'nt rage if he decides to waste yours

I for one like to finish what i start, if i get beat, hey! I got beat. But like you i continue because u never know. Someone can blunder a move that will change the game. Gettimg uppity about how the other person is playing isn't right, Hey! then don't play the person again. I bet he felt you didn't give him enough respect, by playing on, but someone can't lose their cool because of it. This is a game of cool heads and controled agression when it comes to crushing your opponant. If your ahead and your quarry wants the beating to continue, hell I say, I'll just keep kicking the b jesus out of you until the game is over.. then "gg" the man, of course. but thats only one mans thought.

This sounds familliar. 

I always do that too. I am never rude in the chat, but it's thicking me off, that (especially in live chess, where I get disconnected like every single time I beat someone who just has 1 pawn left against my Q and Rook and refuses to resign) they don't resign when I have a clear win. This could be a passed unstoppable pawn. If you waste my time, I will waste your by getting your king stuck in a corner, and proceed to promote knights and so forth. I will try to get a nice looking mate with some knights and bishops. You have the right to not resign, I have the right to promote to knights and bishops. No problem.

oh and by the way, in most most most cases, (like 99 out of 100) people are just hoping that their opponent will blunder, wich is also a disgrace to the game. 

I also notice that low rated people never resign. Leaves me wondering....

You are under no obligation to resign, and he was out of line harrassing you for not doing so.  Underpromoting is a particularly spiteful (and risky) way to make a point and runs counter to the desire to end the game quickly (which presumably is why he wants you to resign).

That being said, letting your time run down in response brought you right down to his level.  You both behaved in an unsportsmanlike fashion and as a result I don't think you really have a leg to stand on as far as complaining about it.

Next time take the high road, even if your opponent does not.

why is he under obligation to not underpromote all of his pawns and take as long as he likes?

I don't feel that it's 100% fair to say that he went all the way down to the other guys level, I mean c'mon, how many of you, after constant harassment, want to get back at him.  I feel that you have every right to continue playing, reguardless of how badly you're losing.  I try to ignore people when playing live chess, but I do resign too but I would never ask anyone to resign.

He is not. Hoping your opponent will blunder and playing on to the bitter end is not un-sportsmanlike at all. Sometimes your opponent will be spectacular at middlegames, but not so good at endgames. Most people value a win above a hard-earned half-point, but they are both better than a loss. I always play till the last move because my opponent may just put me into stalemate.

As the saying goes: "Play wherever your advantages lie." If you see that you can force a stalemate in an otherwise lost position, then cheer up and go for the draw. Even if you can't see a way to draw, you never really know. Take this diagram, for example: 

The game is Evans - Reshevsky in New York, 1963. It is known as one of the greatest saves in chess history. Black is about to checkmate the King with ...Re2+ ( 1.gxf4 would lose to 1...Re2+ 2.Kh1 Qg2 Checkmate.) Instead of giving up, White sets a devious trap with 1.h4! Re2+ 2.Kh1. Black played 2...Qxg3?? when White's King is stalemated ans all he has to do is get rid of his remaining pieces. He plays 3.Qg8+! Kxg8 4.Rxg7+!. Now 4...Kxg7 or 4...Qxg7 leads to a stalemate, and 4...Kf8 5.Rf7+! Ke8 6.Re7+! also gets Black nowhere. White will keep offering the Rook until a draw occurs.

In fact, many chess manuals on tactics explain that a stalemate or perpetual check is an excellent way to salcage a draw. It's not being spiteful, it's called winning the draw!

I forgot something. The h1-Rook and h2-pawn are not supposed to be in the diagram. My mistake.

the other guy has the right to continue underpromoting all his pawns, regardless of how much he's winning

I never said he was obligated not to, I just said it was spiteful, risky and counterproductive since he evidently wants the game to end quickly.  I'll add childish, unnecessary and unsportsmanlike while I'm at it, but counter to any kind of obligation?  No.

I think "talking trash" is simply prohibited and "letting your time run out" can be against the rules in OTB game.  Playing until mate is legal, as well as underpromoting . As soon as it's legal, anyone can have his own opinion about how sportsmanlike it is. I can understand your behaviour with the time since you were provoked. 

i say not resigning is spiteful, counterproductive, childish, unnecessary, and unsportsmanlike

I never resign

Hardly ever call a draw

Would never let my time run out. I can wait; I practice patience.

If it's a rated tournament game, then you could play till the very end in case he makes a stalemate. But if it's just an online casual game, I would resign once he gets a new queen.

So let's say you play till the very end, and he stalemates you by accident, and you celebrate your draw. What have you gained? Just superficial chess.com rating points. What have you learned? Nothing (assuming you already know about stalemates). So what's the point? Instead of hoping for him to stalemate you so you could save a few chess.com rating points, why not use that time to start a new game where you could actually learn something?

The childish member was me. 

First and foremost, I don't apologize for the first statement because I fail to even see it as rude. The first diagram shows the current position at that point and an explanation of what I was doing. 

The trash talking I do apologize for, and I can guarantee to chess.com won't happen again.  I was having a bad night and was bitter and crabby.

The third thing I did - chase you around with knights I usually have no shame in doing.  Its childish as I'm no longer trying to win, but I can only do such a thing in situations where my opponent is being equally childish.  But since I provoked you earlier, I don't have a leg to stand on, and I'm sorry.  However, I can't guarantee it won't happen again.