Answers.Body: <p>Two situations I have seen in FIDE-rated tournaments:</p>
  <ul>
  <li><p>Both players making nonsense moves (mostly king moves) throughout the game.  At around move 20, the arbiter stepped in and gave it a 0:0 score.  [I guess they were going to agree to a draw at some point.]  In this case, the arbiter didn't agree to the idea &quot;if it's legal, then it's good&quot;.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p>Two juniors continued playing after reaching a K+R vs. K+R endgame, neither agreeing to a draw, nor claiming a draw by 50 move repetition [when it became possible].  They played on for hours in this situation delaying the next round of the tournament.  (NB. In their defense, both had been instructed by their coaches not to offer nor accept draws under any circumstances.)</p>
  <p>(Actually, a similar situation happened to me online once: my opponent kept playing a K+R vs. K+R endgame, and I was so disinterested my rook got skewered and they won the game.  I felt that was rather unsporting, but I have to recognize that it actually worked.)</p>
  </li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-13T02:36:39.893Z
Answers.Text: The 75-move repetition rule didn't exist then.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rebecca J. Stones
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-11T04:04:22.100Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-11T04:09:24.420Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-17T09:59:59.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rebecca J. Stones
Answers.Body: <p>I do think that the <strong>intention</strong> (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the <strong><em>intention</em></strong> behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting. </p>
  
  <p>Also, the example you mentioned is very <strong><em>conspicuous</em></strong>, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is <strong><em>intended for wasting time</em></strong> (for example) and thus unsporting. </p>
  
  <p>For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the <strong>intent</strong> behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders. </p>
  
  <p>Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below). </p>
  
  <pre><code>    [FEN ""]
  
      1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can  reasonably conclude that he/she is <strong>deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent</strong>, essentially saying with these moves - <strong>"You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves"</strong>. Or we could conclude (although less likely) that the player is not interested in playing the game and thus acting unprofessionally and thus unsportingly. </p>
  
  <p>Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/5113/2429">Steinitz</a>, who made them thinking they are objectively good. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-11T08:25:47.507Z
Answers.Text: Yes, excellent point!  I agree that the intention is what determines whether a move is within the spirit of the game or not.
Answers.UserDisplayName: firtydank
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-13T03:11:45.903Z
Answers.Text: I think your example is more of taking on unnecessary risk like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYmmV7Oa-U, than passing the ball between the defenders. This could also be bad sportsmanship, of course, but a different analogy.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-14T16:14:34.703Z
Answers.Text: @Akavall, Normally you take risks to improve your position or start an attack. White is doing none of that. All he is doing is saying to the opponent that you're not good enough to beat me despite me having played so badly. In the video you mentioned, the goalkeeper is trying to show-off his own skills and not the lack of skills of his opponents, so this will not be an insult to his opponents. It would be an insult if, for instance, he stood with his back towards a free kick or penalty kick taker, when he would be saying "You're so bad that I can stop your kick even with my back to you".
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-16T13:48:51.530Z
Answers.Text: To me it looks like the goalie is saying "The gap between your shot and my skill is so big that I can block it with my heels!", and in your example white is saying "The gap between is your skill and my skill is so big that I can afford a king walk at the beginning of the game!". Those seems similar to me.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-16T15:41:00.740Z
Answers.Text: @Akavall, lol I think you're pushing it too far. Those kind of shots are pretty regular in football.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-11T02:09:16.030Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-11T02:14:49.443Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-04-13T12:48:53.737Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.Body: <p>Possible unsporting situations I'm thinking about:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>When playing bullet games online (1 to 3 minutes per side), you move a single piece many times like <code>1. Nf3 ... 2. Ng1 ... 3. Nf3 ... 4. Ng1</code> etc. (to gain some time against your opponent)</li>
  <li>When you wait to lose by time instead of resigning (to avoid your opponent to play another game and to force him to keep thinking for nothing)</li>
  <li>When you wait the last minute you have on clock to force mate and win (to apply a psychological pressure to your opponent)</li>
  <li>When playing bullet games online, you promote all your pawns to queens to force mate with a big advantage (to apply a psychological pressure to your opponent)</li>
  <li>When playing games online, you try to distract your opponent by being chatty for example (to force him to make a bad move)</li>
  <li>When you ask for draw many times during a game whereas you are most probably going to lose (to distract your opponent and thus try to force him to make a bad move)</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>All these situations are legal in chess but can be considered as unsporting approaches.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-18T23:26:44.957Z
Answers.Text: Draws should be offered by the players alternately, not by one player repeatedly. The only exception I have ever seen in expert or master games are when a trivially-drawn endgame is reached, and a player who most recently offered a draw extends his hand.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew Lazarus
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-17T17:59:59.463Z
Answers.Text: Actually, if your opponent "promotes all pawns to queens to force mate with a big advantage", it is *you* who's showing poor sports in the first place, by not resigning.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kostya_I
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T09:26:07.280Z
Answers.Text: These are maybe unsporting in online games, but chatting or waiting for last second or playing one move many time even in bullet OTB, are almost impossible, because you shouldn't talk with your opponent during a game, also you cannot move that fast with hand (not mouse), without making mistakes.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Saeed Amiri
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T10:39:44.637Z
Answers.Text: Not all my points but I have edited my answer to specify which point regards online games.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zistoloen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T14:09:40.267Z
Answers.Text: The question is about moves only, not behavior. Why do you think it's unsporting to move a single piece many times during a bullet game? If the opponent is so incompetent that he can't win after such repetition, then he shouldn't be playing bullet to begin with. Promoting all pawns to queen is also not unsporting, because the opponent should have resigned by then. One might argue that the opponent has been unsporting by not resigning when he should have, so he deserves some humiliation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T15:54:24.343Z
Answers.Text: @Wes: I'm a bullet chess player and I'm sure you're not. When you only have 1 minute to play all your moves,
  if you move a knight four times at the beginning of the game, it can suprise and distract your opponent
  and your opponent most probably loses some precious seconds. You need to keep in mind that in bullet games
  losing by time is very frequent. Same thing for promoting queens, your opponent may not resign because he
  hopes a draw by time.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zistoloen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T15:58:54.540Z
Answers.Text: @Zistoloen I'm sure Wes understands that. His point is that in bullet chess, such moves are a normal part of the game and not unsporting.
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T16:57:03.707Z
Answers.Text: @Zistoloen surprising and distracting your opponent is part of chess and I don't see anything unsporting about it as long as you're doing it using chess moves. Carlsen played 1.a4 against Radjabov in a blitz game (and won). I'm sure 1.a4 surprised Radjabov, but you can't say that's unsporting. Chess is psychological warfare too. Great players like Mikhail Tal did it all the time.
Answers.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T17:11:49.457Z
Answers.Text: FIDE law 12.6: "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever." So your last bullet isn't unsporting behaviour but flat-out cheating.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T18:31:34.350Z
Answers.Text: @David Richerby: OK I have edited my answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zistoloen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T18:33:44.657Z
Answers.Text: @Zistoloen OK but even in online chess, I think it's definitely stretching the rules to claim that annoying your opponent is legal.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T11:20:04.697Z
Answers.Text: @David It seems rather easy to ignore such distractions in *online* chess. I mean what options does your opponent really have to distract you that you can't just ignore easily?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Voo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T08:30:22.627Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-07-16T14:22:46.330Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-07-16T14:22:46.330Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zistoloen
Answers.Body: <p>As a strong club player myself, when my opponent makes a brilliant combination, I sometimes give him/her (and the audience) the chance to observe checkmate for the beauty of the game. So, making useless moves isn't always unsportsmanlike.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-10T18:33:24.750Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-10T18:33:24.750Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Edward Small
Answers.Body: <p>All moves are fair, there's nothing unsporting that has been discovered so far.</p>
  
  <p>There are only two situations that really fit well:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Taking a long time to move, when only 1 move is possible.</li>
  <li>Not resigning once the game is lost. (E.g. forcing your opponent to go through the mechanics of a forced mate e.g. King+Queen vs King, is pretty disrespectful).</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Perhaps one might consider playing for a draw from the outset to be unsporting, e.g. if you're ahead in a tournament, but being predictable is a weakness, so if you think somebody is playing for a draw, you need to find a way of possibly using this to your advantage.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-06-26T06:01:07.760Z
Answers.Text: About your 1st point, i see some people getting in bad mood when opponent takes time when they have only one move; but it is their time they are taking, so there is not much reason to complain. As for the second point, the phrase `once the game is lost' is undefined :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cyriac Antony
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-06-27T17:36:20.280Z
Answers.Text: It depends. If you're playing for leisure, then it's both people's time that is being wasted.  Players of sufficient experience will understand when a game's outcome is inevitable whether there is any formal reference or definition to guide them.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lee Kowalkowski
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T11:36:22.770Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-07T13:03:26.153Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-05-07T13:03:26.153Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lee Kowalkowski
Answers.Body: <p>It is unsporting to make moves with the intention of losing.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-06-12T23:53:20.887Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-06-12T23:53:20.887Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: KBS
Answers.Body: <ol>
  <li><p>"Torturing" your opponent by promoting all your pawns to rooks/bishops/knights and mate your opponent with that.</p></li>
  <li><p>Keep offering him a draw when you're in a losing position to annoy your opponent.</p></li>
  <li><p>Scramble the chess piece when he/she goes to the toilet.</p></li>
  </ol>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T12:44:06.007Z
Answers.Text: Could you please develop your answer a little bit? Other ideas?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zistoloen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T13:52:35.640Z
Answers.Text: As to #1, your opponent's an idiot if he hasn't resigned several moves ago.  Now, true story: my bro was in a high school tourney once, and the kid at the next table offered a draw before move #1. His opponent accepted, then the kid said "hey, just kidding!" The tourney director threatened to toss him out on the spot.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Carl Witthoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T14:13:36.530Z
Answers.Text: Believe it or not, #3 is illegal.
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T17:13:10.307Z
Answers.Text: #2 is illegal. FIDE law 12.6: "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw..."
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T17:15:38.360Z
Answers.Text: @CarlWitthoft I'm not sure the kid deserved to be thrown out but the offer of a draw cannot be retracted (FIDE law 9.1b1) so the TD was way in the wrong if the game continued.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-21T18:09:47.943Z
Answers.Text: @DavidRicherby I dunno about FIDE but in USCF it is against the rules to prearrange a draw or agree to a draw in such a position that is obviously unsporting. (before a move has even been played). So it could be possible the director makes the right choice by forcing them to play on.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-21T19:28:54.980Z
Answers.Text: @dfan Indeed. This is addressed by FIDE Laws 7.3 ("If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. [...] The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.") and 7.6 ("If during a game it is found that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position before the irregularity shall be re-instated. [...] The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.").
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-21T19:33:43.217Z
Answers.Text: @Alan I don't see anything to that effect in the FIDE Laws, though Law 9.1a could be applicable: "The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter."
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T08:57:01.697Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-06T12:46:15.653Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-05-06T12:46:15.653Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: zscoder
Answers.Body: <p>Let me mention timed online games where the opponent seems to disappear, then makes a move with a few seconds left in the hope you are no longer watching the board and will, yourself, forfeit.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-18T23:28:14.657Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-18T23:28:14.657Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew Lazarus
Answers.Body: <p>Imho unsporting, but legal, behaviour on the board is mostly done by not resigning:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>If you play until mate in a position where mate is not immediately imminent, but you are completely lost.</p></li>
  <li><p>If you let your time run out instead of resigning, effectively forcing your opponent to wait unnecessarily.</p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>This is from the point of view of a tournament player. Casual players might have a different approach, especially to point one. The mentioned "torturing your opponent by promoting all your pawns before checkmating" is really only possible if your opponent should have resigned already. (And might be an adequate way to show him that he cannot touch you with his unsporting behaviour, that in fact you enjoy playing on in a completely winning position.)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-18T15:06:48.380Z
Answers.Text: At least in club tournaments, some (maybe many!) players prefer to be allowed to play out the mate. It has training value ... (at many levels, at least) and feels satisfying. On the other side, I don't like to give up, at least as long as there is meaningful moves.
Answers.UserDisplayName: kjetil b halvorsen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-16T14:50:51.960Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-16T14:50:51.960Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>For example, in football (soccer), it is often considered unsporting to
    simply pass the ball around your back defenders instead
    of trying to attack. Are there any similar situations in chess?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>I think similar situation to passing the ball around in your half is very passive play with white, I think KIA (King's Indian Attack) is one example. It is, of course, debatable whether this is bad sportsmanship, but there are plenty of people who will call this style "lame".</p>
  
  <pre><code>[fen ""]
  
   1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.d3 c6 4.Bg2 Bf5 5.O-O
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T12:53:35.847Z
Answers.Text: The King's Indian Attack would certainly not be considered unsporting if you ask me. If the opponent doesn't like the resulting playstyle, that's his problem. An opening move like 1. h4, by contrast, would (if played by anyone other than a complete beginner) only be made by somebody trying to make a statement, most likely "I can play this rotten opening move and still beat you. Just watch." That's obviously not very sportsmanlike.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kef Schecter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-08T06:55:15.763Z
Answers.Text: 1. This position is more a Reti than a KIA.
  2. KIA is not lame at all. As a matter of fact is very agressive. One of the greatest World Champions, Bobby Fisher used to play beautiful games with it: 
  [Bobby Fischer Wins With The King's Indian Attack](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1017725)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Johann Echavarria
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-27T16:23:40.900Z
Answers.Text: This White opening is neither passive, offensive, nor unsportsmanlike.  White makes sound developing moves that allow for King safety.  These moves are consistent with White trying to win.
Answers.UserDisplayName: rolando2
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T02:44:26.533Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-07T02:44:26.533Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.Body: <p>The touch-move rule depends on the intention of the player.  It is unsporting to misrepresent one's intention after changing one's mind and changing their move.</p>
  
  <p>This type of situation is nearly never provable because the opponent would very rarely let it pass if they would suspect this, but it is at least suspected <a href="http://touchmoverule.blogspot.com/2013/07/polgar-vs-kasparov-1994.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">at Linares 1994 between Polgár and Kasparov</a>, or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Matulovi%C4%87" rel="nofollow noreferrer">at Sousse Interzonal in 1967 between Matulović and Bile</a>k.</p>
  
  <p>In this case, what would make such a move unsporting, would be that the player has already made a different move.</p>
  
  <p>Other possibilities include cheating using electronics, bribery, collusion to a fake draw, excessively protracting a game whose outcome is, given the level of players, already very unambiguous, and many more.  Tournament chess has rules against a player "making no effort to win by normal means", so all these cases are strictly speaking rather illegal than unsporting; but the move ultimately made on the board itself might well still be legal.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-01-12T23:02:12.240Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-01-12T23:02:12.240Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jirka Hanika
Answers.Body: <p>From what I've read, in the romantic era it was considered unsporting to decline a gambit or a sacrifice. That would certainly fit the defintion of an unsporting <em>move</em> (under the culture of the time). However, once people came to their senses and realized that playing good moves is more important than trying to prove one's &quot;manhood&quot;, all that went away. I can't think of a modern equivalent. Playing the best move is always right. If someone plays a suboptimal move to be &quot;unsporting&quot; (whatever that means), their opponent should refute it by winning, not by whining!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-09-01T20:52:20.743Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-09-01T20:52:20.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <ul>
    <li>Intentionally playing a suboptimal move is always unsuporting, e.g. In a positionally equal game if you have a choice to take opponent's rook or a bishop+pawn and if you do not take the rook rather take bishop+pawn then its unsuporting because you are trying to prove that you know chess better(i.e. trying to prove that (bishop+pawn)>rook)</li>
    <li>Intentionally giving up the opening advantage is considered as unsporting e.g. declining King's Gambit etcs - this is the carlsen's style.   </li>
    <li>Playing wrong opening at the outset e.g. <code>h3,e3,d3</code> or <code>h4,a4</code> etcs are unsporting.   </li>
    <li>Giving up a tempo.   </li>
    <li>Not taking up the gambit when the opponent propose a tactical challenge by sacrificing material.</li>
    <li>Playing a positionally weak move is unsporting e.g. blocking your own bishop with your pawn.   </li>
    <li>Underestimating opponents strategy e.g. allowing the opponent to open up his file for the rook.   </li>
    </ul>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Basically playing wrong intentionally is considered as unsuporting e.g. In the previous world Championship Anand allowed Carlsen to promote his pawn to create a new Queen  because there was a long tactic behind it. The tactics was that in a few moves Carlsen had to sacrifice his new Queen to avoid the forced mate. But what Anand did was a <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1737896" rel="nofollow">blunder</a>. He played 28.Nf1 which opened Carlsen's Queen way to kill the rook. I recall once there was a game of Kramnic vs computer and Kramnik could not see mate in 1. Such type of blunders from the super GM's are very much unsporting.   </p>
  
  <p>In short you can say playing a blunder or try to do something different from usual(mainly playing wrong strategy) is considered as unsporting. Sometimes trying to do something unusual is sporting. It is only when there is some deep analysis behind that e.g. in <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1704763" rel="nofollow">this game</a> Anand played 12.Ng5 a deeply analysed move which to a casual(say under 2500) player at the first glance would appear unusual but it is very much a suporting move. How Aronian played after 12.Ng5 can be called unsporting ;-)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-08T13:12:30.313Z
Answers.Text: I'm not sure I like/agree with this answer because it's basically arguing that making a mistake is unsportsman-like conduct.
Answers.UserDisplayName: TylerH
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-08T14:07:28.363Z
Answers.Text: @user31782 I believe that you are not using the normal definition of the word "unsporting".
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-09T09:16:24.623Z
Answers.Text: @dfan I mixed up _bad play_ with _unsporting_. But what Anand did is really unsporting as par the definition of unsporting.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user31782
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-08T11:33:27.523Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-08T11:33:27.523Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user31782
Answers.Body: <p>As far as I know playing for time when the game is obviously lost (i.e. trying to make it longer with generally useless moves) is considered unsporting</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T07:12:27.120Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-09-01T14:50:08.383Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-09-01T14:50:08.383Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ElDog
Answers.Body: <p>What is "unsporting"? To my mind (backed up by the two or three definitions I quickly browsed), it's mostly about <em>behaviour</em>. To act sportingly is to be fair and respectful, to play for the (mutual) enjoyment of the sport, and&mdash;here's the tricky part&mdash;to not abuse the rules for an unfair advantage.</p>
  
  <p>Unsporting behaviour in general, and the last kind in particular, often leads to new rules being introduced. ("No underarm bowling in one-day cricket" is the first example that comes to mind.)</p>
  
  <p>I can't think of anything <strong>on the board</strong> (as opposed to players' behaviour, or abusing the <em>clock</em>) that would strike me as unsporting. And the lack of new rules to counter anything <strong>on the board</strong> would seem to support that view.</p>
  
  <p>So essentially, no: in standard chess, "if it's legal, then it's good". People might complain about how some style of play (whatever's new and trendy and effective) is changing the spirit of the game or whatever, but so far everything still seems to be fair play.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T09:41:21.113Z
Answers.Text: Thanks Tim - that was exactly the motivation for the question. I was thinking about how many rules in sport (like the back-pass rule in football) was introduced to punish "unsporting" tactics, and was wondering whether chess could do with a similar rule modification or two. So far though, it seems that the rules are good!
Answers.UserDisplayName: firtydank
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T14:36:01.393Z
Answers.Text: This seems like the best response, as the others don't answer the question in the right way. For example, I wouldn't call moving your piece back and forth in a timed game unsporting because you'll usually lose doing this -- your opponent will develop all their pieces and slaughter you if you've done nothing but move one knight. "Unsporting" seems to come down to whether or not there are flaws in the game. The only example I can think of is purposely playing a very dull game where you trade whenever possible and lock things up, but a good player will even take advantage of that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: YungHummmma
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-08T07:46:40.243Z
Answers.Text: Although your answer is not the most popular, I think it does the best job of answering my actual question. Accepted - thanks!
Answers.UserDisplayName: firtydank
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T09:32:02.880Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-07T09:32:02.880Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tim Pederick
Body: <p>In many sports, you often find legal tactics that are considered unsporting by fans, spectators and/or opponents. For example, in football (soccer), it is often considered unsporting to simply pass the ball around your back defenders instead of trying to attack. Are there any similar situations in chess?</p>
  <p>Some examples that I can think of: perhaps it is considered unsporting, or perhaps indicative of lack of skill, to promote 5 pawns and crush your opponent instead of looking for a more elegant mate in a winning position. Also, in my school days, we used to think of scholar's mate as a bit ... unsatisfying. There even used to be a meme going around that scholar's mate is not allowed (probably started by the coach to get the kids to play &quot;proper&quot; chess).</p>
  <p><strong>To be clear, I'm not so much looking for unsporting <em>behaviour</em> as unsporting <em>moves</em>.</strong> I can imagine it being very unsporting to, for example, let your clock run out when you still have 40 minutes left rather than resigning in a lost position, forcing your opponent to hang around just in case you actually make a move.</p>
  <p>Are there any other examples you can think of? Or is chess a case of - if it's legal, then it's good?</p>
  <p><strong>Update:</strong> Just as I was starting to think that unsporting moves are few and far between, Kamsky and Gareev played to a controversial draw by three-fold repetition in round 1 of the US champs. According to the GM's doing the analysis, Kamsky was pretty much forced into the draw, but Gareev had the opportunity to play an alternative move to continue with the game.</p>
  <p>So let's say you have the following situation: player A plays against a much stronger opponent B. By luck or miracle, player A finds himself ahead in the game, and see the opportunity to force a draw (or maybe he is so far ahead that he knows player B would accept a draw if offered). Is it unsporting for him to draw the game then?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T07:44:24.047Z
Comments.Text: can we call magnus carlsen's style of play unsporting?
Comments.UserDisplayName: vinayan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T11:42:03.627Z
Comments.Text: You're in it to win.  I think Cersei's statement is appropriate here: "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die."
Comments.UserDisplayName: Carl Witthoft
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T11:45:48.953Z
Comments.Text: @Carl I thought Ender said it best: “The *way* we win matters.” :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: firtydank
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T12:47:03.540Z
Comments.Text: @firtydank  Then there's  "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."  :-)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Carl Witthoft
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T20:55:07.883Z
Comments.Text: @vinayan Could you possibly expand on the Carlsen comment?  As someone who does not closely follow professional chess, I am curious to understand what in particular you find unsporting about the current World Champion's play.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lumberjack
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-05-06T21:53:26.473Z
Comments.Text: There's no limit to unsporting behavior-
  1. Kissing your pieces before moving them!
  2. Placing pieces right at the edge of a square. 
  3. Smiling at your opponent.
  4. Winking at your opponent.
  5. Laughing at your opponent.
  6. You get the idea...
  7. Doing a break dance after you win.
  8. Showing up naked to play a tournament game.
  9. Not taking a shower for 20 days and then showing up to play.
  10. Keeping snakes inside your shirt such that your opponent can sense their motion.
  ...
  the list goes on.
  
  Unsporting MOVES - well, that's a different story.
Comments.UserDisplayName: NM Wesley Falcao
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T07:45:03.903Z
Comments.Text: @Lumberjack - i would compare carlsen's play to that of Jose Maurinho's tactics to win at any cost..win by boring the opponents(and the game followers too) to death..
Comments.UserDisplayName: vinayan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-05-07T14:57:13.163Z
Comments.Text: on chesscube asking for takeback looks similar to asking to draw, so when losing you can make an obvious blunder then ask for draw, they will accept it like 20% of the time.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ajax333221
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-11-05T13:05:49.237Z
Comments.Text: Go play online (e.g. on chesscube) and you will find a rather comprehensive answer to your question.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pouya
Tags: <sportsmanship>
Title: Are there moves in chess that are considered unsporting?
ThreadText: # Are there moves in chess that are considered unsporting?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-05-06)
  
  In many sports, you often find legal tactics that are considered unsporting by fans, spectators and/or opponents. For example, in football (soccer), it is often considered unsporting to simply pass the ball around your back defenders instead of trying to attack. Are there any similar situations in chess?
  
  Some examples that I can think of: perhaps it is considered unsporting, or perhaps indicative of lack of skill, to promote 5 pawns and crush your opponent instead of looking for a more elegant mate in a winning position. Also, in my school days, we used to think of scholar's mate as a bit ... unsatisfying. There even used to be a meme going around that scholar's mate is not allowed (probably started by the coach to get the kids to play "proper" chess).
  
  **To be clear, I'm not so much looking for unsporting *behaviour* as unsporting *moves*.** I can imagine it being very unsporting to, for example, let your clock run out when you still have 40 minutes left rather than resigning in a lost position, forcing your opponent to hang around just in case you actually make a move.
  
  Are there any other examples you can think of? Or is chess a case of - if it's legal, then it's good?
  
  **Update:** Just as I was starting to think that unsporting moves are few and far between, Kamsky and Gareev played to a controversial draw by three-fold repetition in round 1 of the US champs. According to the GM's doing the analysis, Kamsky was pretty much forced into the draw, but Gareev had the opportunity to play an alternative move to continue with the game.
  
  So let's say you have the following situation: player A plays against a much stronger opponent B. By luck or miracle, player A finds himself ahead in the game, and see the opportunity to force a draw (or maybe he is so far ahead that he knows player B would accept a draw if offered). Is it unsporting for him to draw the game then?
  
  **Tags:** sportsmanship
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: can we call magnus carlsen's style of play unsporting?  
  > **username_2**: You're in it to win.  I think Cersei's statement is appropriate here: "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die."  
  > **username_0**: @Carl I thought Ender said it best: “The *way* we win matters.” :)  
  > **username_2**: @username_0  Then there's  "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."  :-)  
  > **username_3**: @username_1 Could you possibly expand on the Carlsen comment?  As someone who does not closely follow professional chess, I am curious to understand what in particular you find unsporting about the current World Champion's play.  
  > **username_4**: There's no limit to unsporting behavior- 1. Kissing your pieces before moving them! 2. Placing pieces right at the edge of a square.  3. Smiling at your opponent. 4. Winking at your opponent. 5. Laughing at your opponent. 6. You get the idea... 7. Doing a break dance after you win. 8. Showing up naked to play a tournament game. 9. Not taking a shower for 20 days and then showing up to play. 10. Keeping snakes inside your shirt such that your opponent can sense their motion. ... the list goes on.  Unsporting MOVES - well, that's a different story.  
  > **username_1**: @username_3 - i would compare carlsen's play to that of Jose Maurinho's tactics to win at any cost..win by boring the opponents(and the game followers too) to death..  
  > **username_5**: on chesscube asking for takeback looks similar to asking to draw, so when losing you can make an obvious blunder then ask for draw, they will accept it like 20% of the time.  
  > **username_6**: Go play online (e.g. on chesscube) and you will find a rather comprehensive answer to your question.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 15 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_32 on 2014-05-07. Score: 20 | Accepted answer
  
  What is "unsporting"? To my mind (backed up by the two or three definitions I quickly browsed), it's mostly about *behaviour*. To act sportingly is to be fair and respectful, to play for the (mutual) enjoyment of the sport, and—here's the tricky part—to not abuse the rules for an unfair advantage.
  
  Unsporting behaviour in general, and the last kind in particular, often leads to new rules being introduced. ("No underarm bowling in one-day cricket" is the first example that comes to mind.)
  
  I can't think of anything **on the board** (as opposed to players' behaviour, or abusing the *clock*) that would strike me as unsporting. And the lack of new rules to counter anything **on the board** would seem to support that view.
  
  So essentially, no: in standard chess, "if it's legal, then it's good". People might complain about how some style of play (whatever's new and trendy and effective) is changing the spirit of the game or whatever, but so far everything still seems to be fair play.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks Tim - that was exactly the motivation for the question. I was thinking about how many rules in sport (like the back-pass rule in football) was introduced to punish "unsporting" tactics, and was wondering whether chess could do with a similar rule modification or two. So far though, it seems that the rules are good!  
  > **username_33**: This seems like the best response, as the others don't answer the question in the right way. For example, I wouldn't call moving your piece back and forth in a timed game unsporting because you'll usually lose doing this -- your opponent will develop all their pieces and slaughter you if you've done nothing but move one knight. "Unsporting" seems to come down to whether or not there are flaws in the game. The only example I can think of is purposely playing a very dull game where you trade whenever possible and lock things up, but a good player will even take advantage of that.  
  > **username_0**: Although your answer is not the most popular, I think it does the best job of answering my actual question. Accepted - thanks!  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2014-05-06. Score: 17
  
  Possible unsporting situations I'm thinking about:
  
  * When playing bullet games online (1 to 3 minutes per side), you move a single piece many times like `1. Nf3 ... 2. Ng1 ... 3. Nf3 ... 4. Ng1` etc. (to gain some time against your opponent)
  * When you wait to lose by time instead of resigning (to avoid your opponent to play another game and to force him to keep thinking for nothing)
  * When you wait the last minute you have on clock to force mate and win (to apply a psychological pressure to your opponent)
  * When playing bullet games online, you promote all your pawns to queens to force mate with a big advantage (to apply a psychological pressure to your opponent)
  * When playing games online, you try to distract your opponent by being chatty for example (to force him to make a bad move)
  * When you ask for draw many times during a game whereas you are most probably going to lose (to distract your opponent and thus try to force him to make a bad move)
  
  All these situations are legal in chess but can be considered as unsporting approaches.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_12**: These are maybe unsporting in online games, but chatting or waiting for last second or playing one move many time even in bullet OTB, are almost impossible, because you shouldn't talk with your opponent during a game, also you cannot move that fast with hand (not mouse), without making mistakes.  
  > **username_9**: Not all my points but I have edited my answer to specify which point regards online games.  
  > **username_4**: The question is about moves only, not behavior. Why do you think it's unsporting to move a single piece many times during a bullet game? If the opponent is so incompetent that he can't win after such repetition, then he shouldn't be playing bullet to begin with. Promoting all pawns to queen is also not unsporting, because the opponent should have resigned by then. One might argue that the opponent has been unsporting by not resigning when he should have, so he deserves some humiliation.  
  > **username_9**: @Wes: I'm a bullet chess player and I'm sure you're not. When you only have 1 minute to play all your moves, if you move a knight four times at the beginning of the game, it can suprise and distract your opponent and your opponent most probably loses some precious seconds. You need to keep in mind that in bullet games losing by time is very frequent. Same thing for promoting queens, your opponent may not resign because he hopes a draw by time.  
  > **username_13**: @username_9 I'm sure Wes understands that. His point is that in bullet chess, such moves are a normal part of the game and not unsporting.  
  > **username_4**: @username_9 surprising and distracting your opponent is part of chess and I don't see anything unsporting about it as long as you're doing it using chess moves. Carlsen played 1.a4 against Radjabov in a blitz game (and won). I'm sure 1.a4 surprised Radjabov, but you can't say that's unsporting. Chess is psychological warfare too. Great players like Mikhail Tal did it all the time.  
  > **username_14**: FIDE law 12.6: "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever." So your last bullet isn't unsporting behaviour but flat-out cheating.  
  > **username_9**: @username_14: OK I have edited my answer.  
  > **username_14**: @username_9 OK but even in online chess, I think it's definitely stretching the rules to claim that annoying your opponent is legal.  
  > **username_15**: @David It seems rather easy to ignore such distractions in *online* chess. I mean what options does your opponent really have to distract you that you can't just ignore easily?  
  > **username_10**: Draws should be offered by the players alternately, not by one player repeatedly. The only exception I have ever seen in expert or master games are when a trivially-drawn endgame is reached, and a player who most recently offered a draw extends his hand.  
  > **username_11**: Actually, if your opponent "promotes all pawns to queens to force mate with a big advantage", it is *you* who's showing poor sports in the first place, by not resigning.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2014-05-11. Score: 16
  
  Two situations I have seen in FIDE-rated tournaments:
  
  * Both players making nonsense moves (mostly king moves) throughout the game. At around move 20, the arbiter stepped in and gave it a 0:0 score. [I guess they were going to agree to a draw at some point.] In this case, the arbiter didn't agree to the idea "if it's legal, then it's good".
  * Two juniors continued playing after reaching a K+R vs. K+R endgame, neither agreeing to a draw, nor claiming a draw by 50 move repetition [when it became possible]. They played on for hours in this situation delaying the next round of the tournament. (NB. In their defense, both had been instructed by their coaches not to offer nor accept draws under any circumstances.)
  
    (Actually, a similar situation happened to me online once: my opponent kept playing a K+R vs. K+R endgame, and I was so disinterested my rook got skewered and they won the game. I felt that was rather unsporting, but I have to recognize that it actually worked.)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: The 75-move repetition rule didn't exist then.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-05-11. Score: 11
  
  I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting. 
  Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is intended for wasting time (for example) and thus unsporting. 
  For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the intent behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders. 
  Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below). 
      [FEN ""]
  
      1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?
  
  If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can  reasonably conclude that he/she is deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent, essentially saying with these moves - "You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves". Or we could conclude (although less likely) that the player is not interested in playing the game and thus acting unprofessionally and thus unsportingly. 
  Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of Steinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Yes, excellent point!  I agree that the intention is what determines whether a move is within the spirit of the game or not.  
  > **username_8**: I think your example is more of taking on unnecessary risk like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYmmV7Oa-U, than passing the ball between the defenders. This could also be bad sportsmanship, of course, but a different analogy.  
  > **username_4**: @username_8, Normally you take risks to improve your position or start an attack. White is doing none of that. All he is doing is saying to the opponent that you're not good enough to beat me despite me having played so badly. In the video you mentioned, the goalkeeper is trying to show-off his own skills and not the lack of skills of his opponents, so this will not be an insult to his opponents. It would be an insult if, for instance, he stood with his back towards a free kick or penalty kick taker, when he would be saying "You're so bad that I can stop your kick even with my back to you".  
  > **username_8**: To me it looks like the goalie is saying "The gap between your shot and my skill is so big that I can block it with my heels!", and in your example white is saying "The gap between is your skill and my skill is so big that I can afford a king walk at the beginning of the game!". Those seems similar to me.  
  > **username_4**: @username_8, lol I think you're pushing it too far. Those kind of shots are pretty regular in football.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_16 on 2014-12-10. Score: 5
  
  As a strong club player myself, when my opponent makes a brilliant combination, I sometimes give him/her (and the audience) the chance to observe checkmate for the beauty of the game. So, making useless moves isn't always unsportsmanlike.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_17 on 2014-05-07. Score: 4
  
  All moves are fair, there's nothing unsporting that has been discovered so far.
  
  There are only two situations that really fit well:
  
  * Taking a long time to move, when only 1 move is possible.
  * Not resigning once the game is lost. (E.g. forcing your opponent to go through the mechanics of a forced mate e.g. King+Queen vs King, is pretty disrespectful).
  
  Perhaps one might consider playing for a draw from the outset to be unsporting, e.g. if you're ahead in a tournament, but being predictable is a weakness, so if you think somebody is playing for a draw, you need to find a way of possibly using this to your advantage.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_18**: About your 1st point, i see some people getting in bad mood when opponent takes time when they have only one move; but it is their time they are taking, so there is not much reason to complain. As for the second point, the phrase `once the game is lost' is undefined :-)  
  > **username_17**: It depends. If you're playing for leisure, then it's both people's time that is being wasted.  Players of sufficient experience will understand when a game's outcome is inevitable whether there is any formal reference or definition to guide them.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_19 on 2014-06-12. Score: 4
  
  It is unsporting to make moves with the intention of losing.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_20 on 2014-05-06. Score: 4
  
  1. "Torturing" your opponent by promoting all your pawns to rooks/bishops/knights and mate your opponent with that.
  2. Keep offering him a draw when you're in a losing position to annoy your opponent.
  3. Scramble the chess piece when he/she goes to the toilet.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_9**: Could you please develop your answer a little bit? Other ideas?  
  > **username_2**: As to #1, your opponent's an idiot if he hasn't resigned several moves ago.  Now, true story: my bro was in a high school tourney once, and the kid at the next table offered a draw before move #1. His opponent accepted, then the kid said "hey, just kidding!" The tourney director threatened to toss him out on the spot.  
  > **username_13**: Believe it or not, #3 is illegal.  
  > **username_14**: #2 is illegal. FIDE law 12.6: "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw..."  
  > **username_14**: @CarlWitthoft I'm not sure the kid deserved to be thrown out but the offer of a draw cannot be retracted (FIDE law 9.1b1) so the TD was way in the wrong if the game continued.  
  > **username_21**: @DavidRicherby I dunno about FIDE but in USCF it is against the rules to prearrange a draw or agree to a draw in such a position that is obviously unsporting. (before a move has even been played). So it could be possible the director makes the right choice by forcing them to play on.  
  > **username_14**: @username_13 Indeed. This is addressed by FIDE Laws 7.3 ("If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. [...] The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.") and 7.6 ("If during a game it is found that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position before the irregularity shall be re-instated. [...] The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.").  
  > **username_14**: @username_21 I don't see anything to that effect in the FIDE Laws, though Law 9.1a could be applicable: "The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter."  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2019-01-18. Score: 3
  
  Let me mention timed online games where the opponent seems to disappear, then makes a move with a few seconds left in the hope you are no longer watching the board and will, yourself, forfeit.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_22 on 2014-12-16. Score: 3
  
  Imho unsporting, but legal, behaviour on the board is mostly done by not resigning:
  
  * If you play until mate in a position where mate is not immediately imminent, but you are completely lost.
  * If you let your time run out instead of resigning, effectively forcing your opponent to wait unnecessarily.
  
  This is from the point of view of a tournament player. Casual players might have a different approach, especially to point one. The mentioned "torturing your opponent by promoting all your pawns before checkmating" is really only possible if your opponent should have resigned already. (And might be an adequate way to show him that he cannot touch you with his unsporting behaviour, that in fact you enjoy playing on in a completely winning position.)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_23**: At least in club tournaments, some (maybe many!) players prefer to be allowed to play out the mate. It has training value ... (at many levels, at least) and feels satisfying. On the other side, I don't like to give up, at least as long as there is meaningful moves.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2014-05-07. Score: 3
  
  For example, in football (soccer), it is often considered unsporting to
    simply pass the ball around your back defenders instead
    of trying to attack. Are there any similar situations in chess?
  
  I think similar situation to passing the ball around in your half is very passive play with white, I think KIA (King's Indian Attack) is one example. It is, of course, debatable whether this is bad sportsmanship, but there are plenty of people who will call this style "lame".
  [fen ""]
  
   1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.d3 c6 4.Bg2 Bf5 5.O-O
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_24**: The King's Indian Attack would certainly not be considered unsporting if you ask me. If the opponent doesn't like the resulting playstyle, that's his problem. An opening move like 1. h4, by contrast, would (if played by anyone other than a complete beginner) only be made by somebody trying to make a statement, most likely "I can play this rotten opening move and still beat you. Just watch." That's obviously not very sportsmanlike.  
  > **username_25**: 1. This position is more a Reti than a KIA. 2. KIA is not lame at all. As a matter of fact is very agressive. One of the greatest World Champions, Bobby Fisher used to play beautiful games with it:  [Bobby Fischer Wins With The King's Indian Attack](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1017725)  
  > **username_26**: This White opening is neither passive, offensive, nor unsportsmanlike.  White makes sound developing moves that allow for King safety.  These moves are consistent with White trying to win.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_27 on 2019-01-12. Score: 2
  
  The touch-move rule depends on the intention of the player. It is unsporting to misrepresent one's intention after changing one's mind and changing their move.
  
  This type of situation is nearly never provable because the opponent would very rarely let it pass if they would suspect this, but it is at least suspected [at Linares 1994 between Polgár and Kasparov](http://touchmoverule.blogspot.com/2013/07/polgar-vs-kasparov-1994.html), or [at Sousse Interzonal in 1967 between Matulović and Bile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Matulovi%C4%87)k.
  
  In this case, what would make such a move unsporting, would be that the player has already made a different move.
  
  Other possibilities include cheating using electronics, bribery, collusion to a fake draw, excessively protracting a game whose outcome is, given the level of players, already very unambiguous, and many more. Tournament chess has rules against a player "making no effort to win by normal means", so all these cases are strictly speaking rather illegal than unsporting; but the move ultimately made on the board itself might well still be legal.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_28 on 2021-09-01. Score: 0
  
  From what I've read, in the romantic era it was considered unsporting to decline a gambit or a sacrifice. That would certainly fit the defintion of an unsporting *move* (under the culture of the time). However, once people came to their senses and realized that playing good moves is more important than trying to prove one's "manhood", all that went away. I can't think of a modern equivalent. Playing the best move is always right. If someone plays a suboptimal move to be "unsporting" (whatever that means), their opponent should refute it by winning, not by whining!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_29 on 2014-05-08. Score: -4
  
  > * Intentionally playing a suboptimal move is always unsuporting, e.g. In a positionally equal game if you have a choice to take opponent's rook or a bishop+pawn and if you do not take the rook rather take bishop+pawn then its unsuporting because you are trying to prove that you know chess better(i.e. trying to prove that (bishop+pawn)>rook)
  > * Intentionally giving up the opening advantage is considered as unsporting e.g. declining King's Gambit etcs - this is the carlsen's style.
  > * Playing wrong opening at the outset e.g. `h3,e3,d3` or `h4,a4` etcs are unsporting.
  > * Giving up a tempo.
  > * Not taking up the gambit when the opponent propose a tactical challenge by sacrificing material.
  > * Playing a positionally weak move is unsporting e.g. blocking your own bishop with your pawn.
  > * Underestimating opponents strategy e.g. allowing the opponent to open up his file for the rook.
  
  Basically playing wrong intentionally is considered as unsuporting e.g. In the previous world Championship Anand allowed Carlsen to promote his pawn to create a new Queen because there was a long tactic behind it. The tactics was that in a few moves Carlsen had to sacrifice his new Queen to avoid the forced mate. But what Anand did was a [blunder](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1737896). He played 28.Nf1 which opened Carlsen's Queen way to kill the rook. I recall once there was a game of Kramnic vs computer and Kramnik could not see mate in 1. Such type of blunders from the super GM's are very much unsporting.
  
  In short you can say playing a blunder or try to do something different from usual(mainly playing wrong strategy) is considered as unsporting. Sometimes trying to do something unusual is sporting. It is only when there is some deep analysis behind that e.g. in [this game](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1704763) Anand played 12.Ng5 a deeply analysed move which to a casual(say under 2500) player at the first glance would appear unusual but it is very much a suporting move. How Aronian played after 12.Ng5 can be called unsporting ;-)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_30**: I'm not sure I like/agree with this answer because it's basically arguing that making a mistake is unsportsman-like conduct.  
  > **username_13**: @username_29 I believe that you are not using the normal definition of the word "unsporting".  
  > **username_29**: @username_13 I mixed up _bad play_ with _unsporting_. But what Anand did is really unsporting as par the definition of unsporting.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_31 on 2014-05-07. Score: -4
  
  As far as I know playing for time when the game is obviously lost (i.e. trying to make it longer with generally useless moves) is considered unsporting
  
  
  ---
  
  