stupid question time!

 Huh???

If a kid runs out in front of your car, and you strike him dead, are your actions and his actions greater than each of your intentions? Of course not! He was only intending to retrieve his ball and you were intending on driving home. His actions don't mean he was suicidal and your actions don't mean you're homicidal.

The kid's intent might have been simply to retreive his ball, but his action was to run out into traffic.

?

"Careful - it's actually against the rules to do that. You can only have one bishop of each color on the board at one time."

Now I've heard it all!

You're stating the obvious, yes. What I'm saying is that attempting suicide is a crime. If a kid simply didn't know any better or was careless or his friend overthrew the ball and he had no idea he was even out in traffic, he's NOT suicidal.

Intentions mean way more than actions. That's why a hunter who accidentally shoots his best friend does not get the same punishment as a cop killer.

I never said suicidal -- just responsible for the accident.

The hunter vs. cop-killer example is better, and I'll grant that my point was rather more sweeping than it should have been.  Even so -- the action of knowingly drawing a bead on a person and pulling the trigger is clearly different than drawing the bead on what you think is a deer and pulling the trigger, however the "knowingly" part does blur the lines between action and intent (and they are intrinsically tied).

In any case, the point I was trying to make was very much in line with Ender_the_dragon's, only that in addition, irrespective of your intent your opponent would be well within his rights to feel slighted.

I promoted to five queen's once, but stalemated the opponent too...

 There wouldnt need to be no unsportsmanlike behaviour if the guy didnt resign to begin with..

So why is it the promoters fault?

You're opponent should have resigned, but as soon as you stooped even lower than them they were right not to, and that's precisely why.

 Lmfao.

I don't know about your parents, but "but he started it!" never worked on mine.  Rightly so too.

Both players are likely being childish, but unlike with the player who fails to resign, the under-promoter has no leg to stand on when it comes to being granted the benfit of the doubt.

 Well im not gonna start with "He started it!"

 But to be honest i would checkmate the dude right away, but in other peoples minds.. they are thinking WTF dude resign you little chipmunk. and tend to promote.

 All im saying it, non of this wouldav started if he wouldav resigned.. (He started it!, no.. he was being unsportsmanlike and someone wanted him to taste his own medicine.)

 Here we go...

 What???? I was never taught that. Verify your point.

I'd promote to a 5th queen out of pure laziness, not necessarily a slight against my opponent. If his king is running back and forth between 2 escape squares and is guaranteed to lose, I might as well take the easiest way out.

Having a harem of Queens can be counter productive to winning. It is easier to wind up in a stalmate situation. Always look at the board before promoting.

 I did it once, (don't remember where... somewhere on the forums) And it IS possible, through an insane sequence of moves...

 Just not true. There is no such rule.

If my opponent chooses to play with a sole king against an army, then I choose to play cat-mouse game and don't feel breaching any sportsmanship standards. But I prefer mating with pawns instead of multiple queen promotion :)

I choose to typically fight to the end even against overwhelming odds and play for a stalemate. I lost count as to how many games I won when all seemed lost and I got into a winning position and mated my opponent who was up by a wide margin.

I don't see that as unsportsman like, I would view it as an invitation to stalemate or win. The opponent could always resign...