No, IfPatriotGames, you are wrong again. You keep missing my points. You are NOT going to see Fabio Caruana hanging on against Carlsen when Carlsen has 3 queens to his none. He would have resigned long ago. THE POINT: Mimic the etiquette of the top players. Kid players or adults new to chess refuse to resign when hopelessly busted for two reasons, they don't know any better, OR they do know better, but they misbehave anyway. Like DONALD TRUMP, they childishly refuse to accept their obvious loss, and hang on, wasting the time of both players for no good reason. Such disrespect & bad form deserves the humiliation of a maximum proliferation of queens. Also, since a player who refuses to resign is behaving like the dolt Trump, they should go for the FULL TRUMP LOSS PACKAGE, and start a LOSS DEFENSE FUND analogous to Bozo Trump's ELECTION DEFENSE FUND. Heh. Maybe you would give them some money, eh? Sure you would!
CHESS ETIQUETTE: Playing On In Ridiculous Positions, etc,
No, IfPatriotGames, you are wrong again. You keep missing my points. You are NOT going to see Fabio Caruana hanging on against Carlsen when Carlsen has 3 queens to his none. He would have resigned long ago. THE POINT: Mimic the etiquette of the top players. Kid players or adults new to chess refuse to resign when hopelessly busted for two reasons, they don't know any better, OR they do know better, but they misbehave anyway. Like DONALD TRUMP, they childishly refuse to accept their obvious loss, and hang on, wasting the time of both players for no good reason. Such disrespect & bad form deserves the humiliation of a maximum proliferation of queens. Also, since a player who refuses to resign is behaving like the dolt Trump, they should go for the FULL TRUMP LOSS PACKAGE, and start a LOSS DEFENSE FUND analogous to Bozo Trump's ELECTION DEFENSE FUND. Heh. Maybe you would give them some money, eh? Sure you would!
I think you've gotten to the point where you don't even know what your point is anymore. Take your medication before you have a stroke.
There is no rule in chess about when to quit. If someone wants to quit on move one, they can. If they want to quit when the other side has 3 queens, they can. The rules only point out the purpose and objective of the game, checkmate. If one side simply refuses to win, refuses to checkmate, the other side is fully justified in doing whatever they want. They can resign, they can offer a draw, they can play on for a draw or win. There is no right or wrong. In the case of three queens though, clearly something is wrong and it would make sense to play on, taking advantage of whatever might be wrong.
Actually if you promote to multiple queens it is very easy to avoid a stalemate by keeping them on the promotion square. You have to be vigilant but not a problem. Most people see what you are doing and resign.
Actually if you promote to multiple queens it is very easy to avoid a stalemate by keeping them on the promotion square. You have to be vigilant but not a problem. Most people see what you are doing and resign.
That's true. However, there is a reason grandmasters never do it. Maybe it's happened, but I've never heard of a grandmaster promoting to several queens in a winning position, just to waste time. If they did, I would expect the other side to play on knowing something is wrong, something is way out of place. Of course a grandmaster is expected to know how to win in a winning position, so there is no need to get multiple unneeded queens. But anyone willing to take that risk is someone who is not serious about winning. So all bets are off.
Thanks HansSchmendrick! That is the point! Psychological pressure on the Trump-like player to resign!! A player who refuses to resign when totally busted is a boil on the rump of all chesskind! Elite players have the grace & sportsmanship to resign when busted, and we non-GM's should do the same.
Actually I make a chess problem out of the multiple promotions and often get bishops instead of queens. Four black squared bishops aren't going to stalemate, right? I get really annoyed when people play on when busted in the arenas because I need the time to try to score again. Since one usually sees the same opponents in given tournaments they get the message. But in some ways I don't blame them because in the fastest time limits anything can happen. As you can imagine, I am not a Trump admirer.
As a beginner I tend not to resign losing positions, since I'm learning how to convert winning positions and checkmate patterns, even if it's against me. And yes, 'cause my equal level opponents might blunder away leads.
With this example I'ld probably resign 'cause I already know the easy checkmate & in a tournament playing against decent level opponents I probably wouldn't see the point in expecting stalemate. Ofcourse if my opponent where to promote multiple Queens, stalemate is very much back on the board :-)
I guess it's frustrating to feel etiquette evolve ("Thx Obama!" was the frase, wasn't it?), but being in your position I'ld be happy to checkmate a lone King & just tell the kid afterwards that generally it's considered fair play to resign, and ask their was any particular reason he played on and leave it at that.
Actually I make a chess problem out of the multiple promotions and often get bishops instead of queens. Four black squared bishops aren't going to stalemate, right? I get really annoyed when people play on when busted in the arenas because I need the time to try to score again. Since one usually sees the same opponents in given tournaments they get the message. But in some ways I don't blame them because in the fastest time limits anything can happen. As you can imagine, I am not a Trump admirer.
That's something I never thought of before. Another reason someone might play on in a losing position is overall performance. It might be a calculated risk. Play on in the current losing game to wear down or otherwise weaken the opponent so that he does poorly in the next game. Maybe it's a close tournament for second place or something. But I guess that furthers my point about just winning. If someone is 3 queens ahead, just win. If someone is willing to take the risk of stalemate, then the other player is certainly welcome to help him make it happen.
In a speed chess time scramble without time increments I often unnecessarily queen an extra pawn as it is easier and faster to mate with two queens than a king and a queen. I don't entire blame die hards who don't resign because truly anything can happen. I'v never met a good player who doesn't put up a resourceful fight.
It seems that inexperienced players often lose material in the beginning but then find counter-play and can get very resourceful. Their opening play is bad so you don't take them seriously and get sloppy exactly when they are getting stronger. Also, as the aggressor you have to think about sacrifices and such while your opponent often has one feasible move that is easy to find. That leads to time issues and further sloppiness. Many people use this as a strategy, Ali's rope-a-dope approach.
Anonymity encourages bad behavior. At an OTB tourney, the last boards in a round tend to draw onlookers, and not many people can endure looking at their totally busted position with other people standing there, shaking their heads at the losing player's ridiculous refusal to resign. But online? We're pretty anonymous, so I think we see more stupid refusals to resign than OTB.
If they shake their heads or offer any visible reaction to the game, the arbiters should remove them. One of the players would be within their right to demand that.
No, Optimissed, that's not correct. Non-verbal reactions are not proscribed by the rules.
Of course they are.
Don't be daft! 
Anonymity encourages bad behavior. At an OTB tourney, the last boards in a round tend to draw onlookers, and not many people can endure looking at their totally busted position with other people standing there, shaking their heads at the losing player's ridiculous refusal to resign. But online? We're pretty anonymous, so I think we see more stupid refusals to resign than OTB.
Sounds like watching the Eagles play football, though they did beat the Saints.
I'm not daft, Optimissed, you're abaft of common sense. What does a head shake mean? It's ambiguous. You can't be ordered away from a board for making ambiguous silent gestures, unless you are somehow doing it in an irritating way.
OTB I once had to forfeit a game because I had this position and I was white (white to move)
do you know why I had to forfeit?
Because I played Rxf8+ and then I pressed the clock with my OTHER hand. I was mad, but it was my fault, I had swindled myself. I was also playing a player who is rated 1500 on chess.com in blitzz. and he got third in that tournament. I got fourth, and he beat me by one point, and I was ahead in tiebreaks. I was very mad at myself, but he didn't resign, and he got the full point!
XD you dont have the time to type my whole username, talk about contributing to a discussion
Mister_McChess, that brings back a bad memory. I was playing this obnoxious teenager in a Rapid tourney, he was losing, and he tried to win the game with off-the-board gamesmanship, by claiming to the TD that I had punched the clock with the wrong hand. The TD gave ME a time penalty --- after some spurious "fact-finding" --- and I was lucky to hang on and win the game. Republicans, they're everywhere! Bunch of sore losers, always scheming to cheat to win.
I_P_G, no, with every move the chance of stalemate does not grow, as once all the pawns are promoted, every queen move will be done with check. But the wasting of time does grow. Participants in a sport should mimic the play of top-level players, and that includes copying the etiquette around resigning in dead lost positions, or agreeing to a draw in dead drawn positions. Also, your statement about 3 queens misses the point, which is to demonstrate to an opponent who refuses to resign that his position is hopeless, and that he should reconsider his decision to waste the time of both players with his stubborn refusal to accept his obvious loss. Players who won't resign when totally busted are the DONALD TRUMPS of the chess board, childishly refusing to accept defeat. GM's don't misbehave like this, so lower-rated players shouldn't, either.
As long as one side refuses to win, there is no reason for the other side to resign. The three queens scenario. I would have to assume that person is having an episode of some kind. Something is wrong. So what is the point in resigning when the other side is either intentionally or accidentally missing the chance to win?
Defeat only happens when the other side wins. It may or may not happen. If one side actually wants to win, checkmate. If they want to take risks and chances, promote 3 queens. There is no right or wrong answer. Just personal preference.