I'm not very good but learning. There's times when I'm down in points/material/position, basically on a loosing path. The opponent gives more time (why, i dont know, passive aggressive i guess), or messages saying i should resign. I dont resign.
Either try to win by time, or force a stalemate. Recently I had a game against a higher rated player I was clearly down but i tried to go for time or stale. we ended in stalemate (I had no moves), because they were higher rater the stalemate actually counted as negative rating while improving mine. makes sense, that's how the rating works. I presume this made my opponent very angry because i saw i had several messages, they wanted me to resign, and after the endgame telling me it's bad etiquette not to, what's the point, swear words/insults, etc. (of course i reported)
So what's the consensus? bad etiquette or acceptable, and in all games or only higher rated.
You don't owe your opponent a win. It's acceptable to do. Their being upset is not your fault. If they failed to see you had no legal moves remaining, that's on them. It's a valid way to play.
It's acceptable online, you're not responsible for the opponent's fumbling.
In real life it's more embarrassing to play out a dead lost position against someone who's staring at you and sneering at every move. The thick skinned will play it out to mate and who knows, occasionally be rewarded by stalemate.
Stalemate is a gift, your opponent gives to you...Enjoy it!
However... Another old chess terminology, is a draw called "perpetual check" (Leads to three-fold repetition) It involves achieving position in which a player can give endless checks, and the opponent can't stop it. Handy for saving a lost game when down on material. Some say it's a cheap trick, however if you can force a draw with perpetual check and avoid the loss...Why that's just good chess. Part of the game. -:]
I agree with @Skittle-Head. I don't have a problem with perpetual check. It's in the rules. Besides, one's opponent often blunders into such a situation. If your opponent can't avoid the "trap" of perpetual check, that is his or her problem.
Bad etiquette? Yes.
Imagine you were playing in person. If you would not act the same way jn person, then it's bad etiquette. Harving said that, bad etiquette is acceptable online.
I mean it isn't bad etiquete but it might be annoying to some
Considering that stalemate happens almost never at higher elo and it's only benefits is just saving a couple of rating points, the time that was put into playing till checkmate in e — ve — ry losing position is viewed by some people as a waste of time (for both players)
This is aslo the reason you never see GMs play till checkmate even when it's a couple moves away, they just know that their opponent will deliver it no problem
So, in my opinion, the more higher rated you are the less it is acceptable to hope for a stalemate in a losing position (trying to flag your opponent is okay tho)
Personally, I resign out of respect to my opponent's time and ability
tldr: it is absolutely normal but not always practical
We have clocks and rules for a reason.
It's not bad form to win on the clock and it's not bad form to draw by stalemate.
What IS bad form is whining. Even if whining is not mentioned in the rules.
@keegers2 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/8b2pfxhH)
> You don't owe your opponent a win. It's acceptable to do. Their being upset is not your fault. If they failed to see you had no legal moves remaining, that's on them. It's a valid way to play.
Agreed.
A win is 2 points and a draw is 1.
A stalemate doesn’t hurt your rating like a loss and can even increase your rating.
Over time this can have a big impact.
If they are in a winning position and stalemate you they don’t deserve the win and need to practice their endgames.
Hot take: don’t resign until you’re high elo.