is it bad etiquete to aim for a stalemate when you're clearly down in material/about to lose?

New here, haven't been able to resign. I touch the flag icon (on phone) and it pauses for a second, then the game resumes as if the opponent declined a draw offer. I realize this is a site feedback question, but this thread seems ok to ask. Tried to resign against a methodical bot who had me trapped between two legal spaces while it advanced a pawn, no chance of stalemate. Would rather not take time in a guaranteed outcome, especially against a human.

and technically, perpetual check falls into the catagory of three fold repetition, since both players know the game will be drawn be three fold eventually. its basically the same thing with a king and 2 knights. checkmate can happen, but the losing opponent sort of has to agree to be checkmated so it is usually just drawn. three fold repetition is also a good way to draw a game.

the only time i insult the opponent is when they do a queen sortie in the first 5 or so moves, and then its usually something about how they play like a romantic era duke and count, an opera game reference that most players get

In my opinion,
It's never bad to convert games that are completely losing...
You can check my profile games to find that I WIN a few losing games every now and then (by flagging)... I don't think it's your fault to do so because it's your opponent who's not careful.
Chess is brutal and such things happen if one is not watchful.
What I feel is unfair is that in tournaments when your losing opponent is in a better rank and the tournament just ends, you don't get any points for that, even if you berserk.
Do you agree!?

@gs003 said ^

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 actually do the same otb.

Then you have bad etiquette on and off the board! :)

I find it very difficult to flag opponents OTB when down on time because, unlike online chess, there are no pre-moves (which don't count against your time), and I generally play without increments. I can definitely get away with far more shenanigans online than OTB. So, in my experience, winning or drawing a game by exploiting clock technicalities is never really an issue for me in an OTB game.

Etiquette, of course, is more a matter of preferences and social expectations than anything else. With friends in a casual setting, I'd resign a lost game OTB. In a more competitive setting with members of my club I do not consider close friends, I'd play it out.

Online etiquette? Does not really exist. If strangers get mad about your bad etiquette, that is their problem. The only way it affects you is if you find yourself relying on these "cheap" mechanisms to regularly "win" games you have clearly lost on the merits. Remember, you can be great at blitz and bullet and still terrible at chess.

I have had many obviously inexperienced players play on when they are many, many points down.

That's their right. Even if it feels tedious, I do not take it as an intended insult. Indeed, I'd merely be imagining it to be an insult, nearly all of the time, if I did. No point in inventing trouble.

Furthermore, every once in a long while, it pays off for them. I lose attention and make a silly move that stalemates them.

And when that happens, it serves to remind me not to succumb to what some of the great Russians call "dizziness due to success."

And in that way we both learn from the experience.

Not at all a reason for anger or whining.

At genuinely top level, I can see that there might be reason for irritation if a very high-level player plays on against a very high level player in an obviously horrid position with plenty of clock left. But very, very few of us play near the top, at least in chess.

So, for those without divine skill if they wish to play on I will not curse at them. Indeed, since I do not play at genuinely top level myself, I won't curse at ANYBODY who keeps trying to make me prove an obvious win.

Again, that's their right.

I mean you cant blame a man for trying

@Pronatorade said ^

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.

Nope, it just fine online, offiine. This is a game where you aim for best possible result. If there is chance for stale mate, repetition or the 50 moves draw ofcourse you go for it.

@gs003 playing on in a losing position means less fun for both sides compared to an equal game and neither side is gonna really learn anything from it, at least not more than an equal game. So what do you choose? Fun and actual strategic improvement by moving onto the next game OR you can try for the mere chance or cope of your opponent blundering so that you can leech out the miniscule smallest bit of ELO rating.

You are trapping both your opponent and yourself in a game, because you think you have a 5% chance of winning, and that 5% chance of winning means so much to you because you care so much about elo.

@pmpsoft said ^

New here, haven't been able to resign. I touch the flag icon (on phone) and it pauses for a second, then the game resumes as if the opponent declined a draw offer. I realize this is a site feedback question, but this thread seems ok to ask. Tried to resign against a methodical bot who had me trapped between two legal spaces while it advanced a pawn, no chance of stalemate. Would rather not take ti...

you probably have to touch the flag icon twice within 1 second.