In an obviously won game to promote to 4 extra knights, or two extra biships, etc, just to
humiliate your opponent? Or should this be viewed as part opponents fault for simply not
resigning? (I know it is legal, but is it rude?)
Thoughts please,
Rob Jones
I remember someone once saying, “Everyone has the right to be checkmated.” Not only in scholastic play do we see players playing on in hopeless positions. Why? Sometimes because they are punishing themselves. Sometimes because they cannot stand to resign to a particular obnoxious opponent. And sometimes, on the off chance that their opponent in trying to goof on an opponent will allow a stalemate. Playing to humiliate an opponent can backfire. I advise all to play respectfully, simply, and without any theatrics. Shake hands and tell your opponent what a tough game it was. You might find yourself rewarded with earlier, and respectful resignations. That will give both players more time to go over the game. Might make a few more friends, too.
I would say it depends on the age of the players. I would react differently to how a 10 year old would act than to how a 30 year old would act.
Perhaps it should be considered deserved rudeness.
Bill Smythe
Torture of any type is a violation of international law, not to mention basic human decency. Still, it can be a fun and deserved activity at times (in chess). 
There was a high school team tournament a while back where an expert level board one had a queen, some other pieces and some pawns while the C-player opponent was down to a bare king and was playing on. Some of the other boards on the team had a while to go before they finished so there was no need to end things quickly. The expert proceeded to make a few additional knight and concentrate on the K+4N vs K mate. The coach of the opponent came to me and asked if I would penalize the expert for needlessly prolonging the agony of the lone-king player, possibly forfeiting the expert for unsportsmanlike play. I responding that his player had the ability to end the agony at any time (by resigning) and that the moves being played were legal.
At the other end of the rating spectrum a K+Q vs K endgame seems to end in stalemate about half the time while a K+2Q vs K endgame seems to end in stalemate 90% of the time.
Weaker player that are piling on do so at their own risk.
Playing on in blitz can often be reasonable even with a significant material deficit and I’ve been able to execute very unexpected checkmates or super-rook perpetuals against players with a lot of extra material that weren’t bothering to look to see of there was counterplay.
Years ago I remember a young player (rated under 1000, I believe) who reached a K+R vs K endgame and was unable to checkmate his opponent, so the game wound up as a draw.
Afterwards I showed him how to do that checkmate. Back when I was teaching chess in several elementary schools (during their math period), I found that most kids could master the K+R vs K checkmate by 4th grade once they were shown how to do it.
I wouldn’t say stalemate in the first instance, but certainly a draw, either by 50/75 move rule or simply hanging the queen as well as stalemate.
Some players are very overrated at 100-150.
Alex Relyea
I play a lot of online games, and at least once a week, or occasionally more often, I get an opponent that will play to being checkmated, regardless of the fact I have overwhelming odds.
Now, sometimes I can see the opponent is trying to squeeze some sort of stalemate, and I tip my hat off for that, although the chances are slim, but more often than not, it’s clear the opponent isn’t capable of doing that.
Now, the question is: “What is considered rude?”.
In my opinion, it’s immature for an opponent not to resign when they have zero chance of winning the game, and clearly the possibility of tricking the person into a stalemate is about 1/Graham’s Number… or even 1/Tree(3).
So the question really is about what’s worse: is it rude to keep promoting to inferior pieces, or immature not to resign in such a quandary? If we’re talking kids, once they turn 13 or 14, they should be mature enough not to do that, but certainly it would look childish for a 15 year old or older person to promote to a knight or bishop if a rook or queen would suffice to win the game.
There is the occasional scenario where promoting the first piece to a knight is more suitable, usually more for the immediate fork and/or the ability for the knight to chomp down on the opponent’s pieces due to the board position, making it easier to set up a mate. In 40+ years of playing chess, I’ve never come across the need to promote to multiple knights, bishops, or any other knight and bishop combination.
As far as being forced to promote to a bishop, I think I’ve only come across those in puzzles. I’m sure it’s come up in serious play somewhere, but it has to be exceedingly rare. If I’ve ever had to do that, I’ve long since forgotten about it.
FYI: I’ve been waiting years to have a reason to whip out Graham’s Number or Tree(3) in a forum post someplace on the internet. 
Numberphile on Youtube has some excellent videos on both Graham’s Number and Tree(3). Tree(3) is so much bigger than Graham’s Number that it’s hard to visualize it even when just comparing to Graham’s Number. It’s so much bigger, that Knuth’s Up Arrow Notation isn’t adequate to show the equation. David Metzler on Youtube has an excellent series on the subject of huge numbers and if one watches the first 6 or 7 videos, you can get a grasp of numbers so big, it stretches the boundaries of mathematics to even define such large numbers. It was getting too theoretical for me after about the 7th or 8th video.
Been a while, 3 or 4 years ago since I watched them. I recall I watched up to the 11th or 12th video out of curiosity, but my brain mostly crapped out by the 8 or 9th video.
It may be rude to play on in a lost position, but at least the player is playing. I remember once watching a player with a lost position just sit and wait for the time to run out, about 1 hour.
My feeling is that playing on can be done in hopes of somehow swindling the opponent. However, once you have run out of ideas and it is clear nothing is going to work you should resign. Having said that I will admit to playing out to mate, but only when I feel I maybe should have resigned earlier. My feeling is that not a lot of players actually get to play checkmate, and I should give them this if it is not far off. I really detest those players who play until it is mate in 1 & only then resign the game. That is about as rude as you can get. On the other hand there is always the chance to be rude back and ask the losing opponent if they would like to resign. 
Larry S. Cohen
You people need to sit back and consider what you have written. Something is wrong with the current way Chess is being played if a question like this needs be asked. The answer to the question is, “Certainly it is rude behavior!”
Could it be that something is lacking in what is being taught to young students?
How to Deal With Rude Behavior at Work
by Shelley Frost
A rude employee brings down the morale of his colleagues, decreasing productivity and work satisfaction. If the employee shows his rude side to business partners or customers, he could hurt business. Rude behavior often falls outside the scope of basic workplace policies, making it difficult to remedy and discipline. Squashing the rude behavior is essential to creating a more productive, positive work environment that all employees deserve. Learn to deal with the negative employee effectively to get the attitude problem under control quickly.
smallbusiness.chron.com/deal-ru … 12066.html
Rude players damage the Royal game, which is reason enough to eliminate rude behavior. Bobby Fischer, for example, was never rude when playing the Royal game, because he had too much respect for the game.
Rudy Dude
Hmm, if you ask an opponent with a “lost” position to resign, be prepared to be penalized with the loss of the game for a lack of sportsmanship. Keep your mouth shut and finish playing the game, no matter how long it takes. Demonstrate the most efficient technique in winning. There may be a problem like finish that you can learn from for future contests. Do not be rude to your opponent at any time. A good rule for life, too, as you have no idea what a person might do if he is “disrespected”. In some cultures, to be rude is to court all manner of calamities.
I have seen adults berating young players (I wasn’t sure if it was their students or possibly their own kids) for resigning too soon.
and i’ve seen them berate them for not resigning sooner. oh, well… doesn’t bother me any more- since i’ve started coaching!
…scot…
I assume that the amount of time remaining might impact whether people view it as rude.
I’ve seen posts here and there on this forum over the years, where some coaches teach kids to play to the bitter end, regardless if they’re down to a single king.
Although it might be practical for younger kids, perhaps 10 and under to do that, if only because it wouldn’t hurt them to get practice looking for stalemates, since their opponent is most likely of a pretty low skill level and could easily hand a stalemate to a lone king.
But at some point, a coach should explain to the kids that they don’t have to keep playing to the bitter end if it’s obvious they won’t win. No reason for anybody to keep playing against a stronger player if it’s obvious who’s going to win.
That’s not to say I haven’t, as an adult, gotten into the position where I was playing against a lone king and the opponent managed to get a stalemate, but the opponent gave up his last couple pieces to all but force the issue. -In post analysis, I did find a way to avoid a stalemate, but it was something like 9 or 10 moves earlier… so it was a bit over my horizon at the time, I was just gobbling up pieces and having a time of it. Since then, I’ve become much more jaded about just gobbling up pieces, and now just go for the quickest win, or at least let the opponent have one other movable piece… just in case.
When setting up the board I often turn my Knights so their backsides face my opponent. I don’t consider it rude. I see it as sending a subliminal and psychological message.
Someone Chess.com posted a game where he needless kept promoting queens and stuff, and the name of the thread was “What do you do to TORTURE your opponent.”
It took about 15 minutes of posts by other people telling what a bad person he was, before he decided to close his account.
I can understand beginners, especially if they’re in the 10 and under crowd to do that. They might not have the ability to execute a mate, and often with children, adults tell them to play the game out no matter how bad their game is.
A number of new players (including a fair portion of the 10 and under crowd) do not know how to mate a lone king using just a king and queen and if they try they will blunder into a stalemate half the time. If they have two queens they will blunder into a stalemate 90% of the time.
Trying to torture your opponent by promoting extra queens may give your opponent some additional hope that you will make a mistake and cede the draw.
One time there was a game (non-rated) team match where a player on board one was way up in material and his opponent played on. The player then proceeded to promote additional knights while being nowhere near committing a stalemate. The opponent’s coach asked me to forfeit the player for unsportsmanlike conduct because he was prolonging the agony of the opponent. My response was that the opponent could end the agony at any time simply by resigning so it wasn’t just one player that was prolonging it. The game did finally end in a K+5N mate of the opponent.
Somebody should invent a problem, White to move and NOT stalemate, where the only correct solution is to lose.
Bill Smythe