What's your favorite way to punish arrogant players?

@borninthesixties said in #15:
> ... (lots of deleted crap)
>
>
> Wow, this is one of the most obnoxious and arrogant posts I've seen here. If I could down vote it more than once I definitely would.
>
> You do this crap at your own peril (and you can certainly stalemate someone without any queens). I was watching one of Hanging Pawns's videos recently. He was pissed that an opponent wasn't resigning in a position that was K+Q+2 or 3 pawns vs K. I remember it well - he says "well, he's not resigning so I'm going to make 3 queens. I don't care, I won't stalemate him." Then 2 moves later...stalemate. I definitely laughed out loud when I saw that. Was it worth it...

That's why you SHOULD promote to rooks. With rooks the odd for stalemate gets far far lower. It's 1 stalemate every 20 games. Is it worth it? ABSOLUTELY!! Is it worth the time? ABSOLUTELY!! I'm having a euphoria torturing my opponent, why should I kill them quickly?

From your story. I bet he's a chess beginner, maybe rated 700 or 900 at max. Only pro players promote to rooks to avoid stalemate.

Y'all a bunch of *******

Chess is a game. A game is supposed to be fun. If you're having fun then you're not wasting your time. If you're not having fun then there's the exit button. Since my opponent is also having fun by keep on playing then there's nothing to complain when I make a sh*tty art. As time goes on, my art skill will increase. In the future this could be an entirely new hobby: making art out of a checkmate.

I'm 100% innocent in here.

@SNS48 said in #22:
> Y'all a bunch of *******
>
> Chess is a game. A game is supposed to be fun. If you're having fun then you're not wasting your time. If you're not having fun then there's the exit button. Since my opponent is also having fun by keep on playing then there's nothing to complain when I make a sh*tty art. As time goes on, my art skill will increase. In the future this could be an entirely new hobby: making art out of a checkmate.
>
> I'm 100% innocent in here.

That's fine - you're free to deliver checkmate however you want.

But you should have admitted this in your first post, instead of making the excuse of doing it to "punish arrogant players". Just say what you did here, which is that you "have euphoria torturing your opponent" and it would make a lot more sense. The opponent is free to resign at any point so I wouldn't have a problem with someone doing this to me.

I do think you know it's not a nice thing to do though, and it's not something you would have the guts to do in person, against someone who plays until mate. Which is why you made that excuse, to justify your behavior.

Your definition of "arrogant player" in your first post was basically anyone who tries to win in bullet, and you're classifying completely normal behavior as arrogance (like asking for a rematch, exchanging pieces when up material in a bullet game where having a simpler position is critical).
That's why you got such a unanimous response.

@SNS48 said in #22:

> I'm 100% innocent in here.

You also lack around 100% of self-awareness. You're just using non-existent arguments to justify your own toxic behavior. It's a good thing you play on the internet and not in-person, you would at least have had many player not want to play with you again...

@SNS48 said in #21:
> That's why you SHOULD promote to rooks. With rooks the odd for stalemate gets far far lower. It's 1 stalemate every 20 games. Is it worth it? ABSOLUTELY!! Is it worth the time? ABSOLUTELY!! I'm having a euphoria torturing my opponent, why should I kill them quickly?
>
> From your story. I bet he's a chess beginner, maybe rated 700 or 900 at max. Only pro players promote to rooks to avoid stalemate.

Being 2900, I never promote to rooks, so idk what you are talking about

Just a horrible post exposing the OP's awful outlook. Toxic indeed...

Community reputation checkmate or check lol

Try to calculate reply dude :v

So it seems that a lot of things annoy somebody or the other:

- if you ask for a rematch after losing, it annoys them
- if you refuse a rematch after winning, it annoys them
- if you take too much time on a move (particularly when you are down), you must be stalling
- if you take your time to move (even in a correspondence game), it annoys them
- if they lose on time 'in an obviously drawn position', they are annoyed
- if you play fast (in a position that your opponent considers critical), you are not being a sportsman
- if you take roughly the same time on each move, you must be consulting an engine
- if you play with high accuracy, then of course you are cheating
- if you blunder, you must be purposefully losing
- if you do not resign a (supposedly losing) position, you are wasting their time
- if you don't deliver a quick checkmate, you must be teasing them
- if you under promote, you must be teasing them
- if you promote more than one queen, that is also teasing
- if you turn off the chat during the game, it annoys them
- if you play an unconventional opening, they abort immediately
- if you play positionally, you are boring
- if you trade pieces when you are up, it annoys them
- if you challenge someone strong, it annoys them
- if you don't accept a challenge from a low rated player, it annoys them
- last but not the least, if you play the London, it annoys them

Am I missing something? What is the correct way to play chess?