What a clown opponent

What!? Why did it you so so long?

what's the chess.com policy on naming and shaming ?

is it that you are not allowed call someone an engine user when they actually are, but you are allowed to call someone a clown when they are not and you can proceed to attack their character on the forums ?

someone enlighten me to the logic.

Good point.

I think it might have something to do with cheating being bad publicity, but jerks on forums are not. An "out of sight, out of mind" approach where if we don't see people talking about cheating, then we're less likely to think about it.

No, I agree with the OP, even if he is a jerk. His opponent was the clown.

(Also his opponent is the one who dragged the game out.)

You can't have it both ways.

There is also no rule that requires winning as fast as possible.

The one who is losing can end the game at any time. The one who is winning is forced to keep playing. They are the victim, not the clown who doesn't resign as any polite player would.

i think i understand then why you can't mention another site without your post getting torched, Chinny. it reminds me of Oliver Twist.

"you got to pick a pocket or twooooooo, youuuuuuuuu got to pick a pocket or two boyyyyyyyyyyys. you got to pick a pocket or two."

If the opponent is being very rude, you might as well have some fun.

If it's a very low rated player, of course it's ok to keep playing. But OP's opponent was being rude.

Maybe when you're good enough to win 5 pawns up in a king and pawn endgame you'll understand.

And by the way, grandmasters will do things like promote to all knights and mate you with all knights...

Well, they don't do that to me, because I'm not a jackass, I resign in totally lost positions.

but you won't see them beating their chest on a forum.

The player pretty much deserves what he get's if he doesn't resign. If it makes his opponent angry, that's good as well.

OP is a troll, no doubt.

But between people who don't resign and people who underpromote, only one person is trapped in that game. The loser can resign any time they get tired of it, the other player is forced to waste their time with a beyond trivial position.

Pretty sure the OP wasn't feeling miserable at all as he underpromoted and thought about how he'd make fun of his opponent on the forums afterwards.

According to the late Robert James Fischer you play the board, you play to win.
Nothing will convince me that trying to make a point, due to the lack of a resignation is the way to go. You queen a pawn and deliver mate. If it just so happens that queening a second pawn leads to a faster mate, you queen the second pawn.
Chess is won by check-mate.
Resignation is a convenience for the losing player, not a right of the winning player. 

Also pretty sure the OP would have preferred his opponent to resign some time between move 20 and 30.

Fischer would have resigned, but a fast checkmate is also not a right.

A player is free to choose to play on in a trivial position just like his opponent is free to choose any legal move, including underpromotions.

?

By the way, if I were on the losing side, under promotions are exactly what I want to see. The only reason is to keep playing is to show disrespect to your opponent (at least when you're rated as high as 1900 as in the game). So if the opponent is under promoting, it means you got to them, they're trying to be rude back, which means your rudeness was effective.

By the way I would never do this in a serious game or against a beginner.

But the OP's opponent knew what he was doing, and it was a casual online game.