Is "Sore Winning" Against Lichess Rules?

#30: Some People Would Say That Letting Your Opponent Checkmate You Is Better Sportsmanship Than Resigning.

Whether Resigning Or Playing Until Checkmate Is Better Sportsmanship Is A Totally Subjective Thing.

However, I Would Argue That Stalling Your Opponent Because They Won't Do Something (Resign) That They Don't Have To, But You Would Like Them To Do Is - In All Honesty - Asinine Behaviour.

@Shadow1414 said in #31:
> #30: Some People Would Say That Letting Your Opponent Checkmate You Is Better Sportsmanship Than Resigning.

Some other people think it's better to rob a bank, so what? There is plenty of people who can't understand chess. Those who can't see when to resign don't know how to play, and when they are taught and still play on, they are like stubborn immature kids.

@TCF_Namelecc said in #11:
> That's BS. If I wanted to resign I would have done so. If I thought it more honorable I would have done so. The fact that I haven't resigned means that I wish to be mated, and if my opponent waits 7 minutes for me to resign, they are wasting my time and are not respecting my wish to go out with a checkmate.

On rare occasions I've underpromoted my pawns and got practice with B+B or B+N mates... since the opponents didn't resign I assume that's what they wanted to see, no? And it is a checkmate, just perhaps not what they expected.

I guess my point is, if you're defending an endgame that I could win blindfolded (but still requires many easy moves) sometimes I get bored and don't want to lose interest in the game.

@Toadofsky said in #33:
> On rare occasions I've underpromoted my pawns and got practice with B+B or B+N mates... since the opponents didn't resign I assume that's what they wanted to see, no?

Me too, sometimes I do exactly the same thing (-:

Some hilarious case occurred to me: some guy remaining with a naked king against my army, I start to offering pieces to end up with just two bishops... And now he wouldn't even capture! I have to stall his king everytime so that his only move is a capture, and finally I get to the couple of bishops and mate him.

I don't mind when they are beginners, unfortunately I get a lot of 'question marked' players. Problem is when they come here and claim that resigning is not fair chess anymore. They ignore the concept of respect for their opponent. And that is pretty insulting.

Chess is war, and ((feelings)) have no place on the battlefield. It's victimizing that the other player is all in the dumps and in the blue i.e. sad and depressed over losing because it's a great opportunity to learn what you did wrong. It's a stellar opportunity to grow and Intellectually examine your chess game. You won't get better playing bums who are worse than you. You only get better by playing the best, study and examining your ((Your games)) and Others games. Preferably GM games, games from the past etc... Also, what's new in chess may be a source of insight. I say all this because it's Kind to be nice to others in a vulnerable moment, but they know what they are getting themselves into, and they should be adults and cope with losing. It's part of chess and ascending to your best potential.