Answers.Body: <p>There is no rule or law that says that you have to try and checkmate in as few moves as possible and so there is no ethical requirement either.</p>
  <p>In fact, if there are just a few pieces left on the board and you are very short of time it makes a lot of sense to take all the opponent's pieces as quickly as possible and only then worry about how you are going to checkmate.</p>
  <p>Otherwise if you run out of time while your opponent still has some material left then you are going to lose on time. If your flag falls after you have taken all their pieces then you still get a draw.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T20:22:43.733Z
Answers.Text: Similarly if I'm in serious time trouble I'm never going to try to find a shorter mate with one queen if I can just easily push a pawn down the board and then do a thoughtless mate with two queens.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Noah Snyder
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T12:36:03.330Z
Answers.Text: In that situation I would even promote to rook, as I found mating with rook and queen even simpler and safer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hans Olsson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-02-28T18:53:26.200Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-02-28T18:53:26.200Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>It depends.</p>
  <p>The <a href="http://www.uschess.org/index.php/Governance/Code-of-Ethics-of-the-US-Chess-Federation-US-Chess.html" rel="noreferrer">USCF Code of Ethics</a> states that the following is unethical:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game, in any manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or fair play.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>I would take this to mean that if you have a mate in 1 and you see it but purposely don't play it, you're being unethical. However, I would <em>not</em> take this to mean that you cannot take your opponent's pieces if this is a legitimate attempt to win (or prevent losing on time.)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T08:56:00.817Z
Answers.Text: That's a bit dodging the question, isn't it? Because the code doesn't say failing to play at ones best is *always* unethical -- it says it's unethical if it is inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship. But this qualification is exactly what the OP is asking about!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter - Reinstate Monica
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-03T11:05:19.593Z
Answers.Text: That's about throwing the match, not toying with your opponent.
Answers.UserDisplayName: candied_orange
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-04T21:48:20.350Z
Answers.Text: @Peter-ReinstateMonica The ethical rules say what they say. All I can do is quote them and give my opinion. People here are using terms like "toying with" or "torturing" to describe the behavior in question. I think that if someone is "deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game" to "toy with" or "torture" their opponent, what they are doing is "inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship".
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T04:20:33.370Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-03-01T04:20:33.370Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.Body: <p>If a football game was lopsided at halftime, wouldn't it be ethical to call the game?</p>
  <p>Since chess has a resigning option, I don't consider any move as unethical.  I consider an opponent who doesn't resign in a hopeless position as someone who deserves to be tortured, and it allows me to practice technique.  So promote to all knights and practice the unusual mate.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T01:38:21.510Z
Answers.Text: Be careful with the 50 move rule though
Answers.UserDisplayName: jf328
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T23:31:07.150Z
Answers.Text: @jf328 And accidental stalemate
Answers.UserDisplayName: Comic Sans Seraphim
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T06:21:46.817Z
Answers.Text: My opponent promoting to knights would make me feel it was the correct decision not to resign and play for a slip-up.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rebecca J. Stones
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T22:36:23.087Z
Answers.Text: Why would someone call a football game at halftime? At least give the losing team some more playing experience.
Answers.UserDisplayName: mbomb007
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-03T17:24:08.897Z
Answers.Text: Does *association football* have such a rule?  Professional American football sure doesn't, though high school (and probably other) leagues usually do.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RonJohn
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-03T17:25:15.327Z
Answers.Text: What's typically frowned upon is *running up the score* with your first teamers.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RonJohn
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T00:12:52.583Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-03-01T00:12:52.583Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mike Jones
Answers.Body: <p>It depends on level of play and seriousness. If this game is a tournament game but lower rated, I would be happy if my opponent was playing around. This would allow more stalemating chances.</p>
  <p>If I seriously didn't want to endure it, I could always resign. If this was a grandmaster game or just a high rated game that was taken seriously, it may be seen as disrespectful and unsportsmanlike to do so.</p>
  <p>Just like how there are no real rules against offering a draw, it could be seen as rude to offer a draw when you're clearly losing.</p>
  <p>Of course if you're playing a casual game, you can do whatever you want. When I play with my friends I would often give up all my pieces and underpromote some pawns to do fun checkmates like 3 knights and whatnot.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-02-28T23:45:57.137Z
Answers.Text: "When I play with my friends I would often give up all my pieces and underpromote some pawns to do fun checkmates like 3 knights and whatnot." -- and your friends still play with you?
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T05:30:41.053Z
Answers.Text: @JohnColeman: I was losing a game, so I sacrificed my last piece to ensure the game ended in KBB vs K. My opponent said I should resign. I said he couldn't win. He couldn't.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joshua
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T09:15:59.263Z
Answers.Text: @JohnColeman: I know this situation from my youth days. If your friends no longer play with you (remember, *they* started the "insult" by not resigning), they never were your friends in the first place. This falls under the same rules as "flyting" during banter blitz: promote to ten knights with an evil grin on your face and in the next game you are bestest buddies again.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T11:42:22.773Z
Answers.Text: @HaukeReddmann Obviously it depends on context. In most chess contexts, toying with a defeated opponent would be considered poor sportsmanship, though the same could be said about not resigning.
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T13:18:34.770Z
Answers.Text: If I gain the upper hand, I prefer to capture and exchange as many pieces as possible, even if there's a possibility of checkmate sooner. This is so I can clear the board and get down to a simpler end-game. If there are lots of pieces still in play, I'm always worried I miss something and make a mistake.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Oscar Bravo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T13:53:55.727Z
Answers.Text: @OscarBravo There is a huge difference between realizing your advantage in a way that prevents counterplay and simply toying with your opponent in a won position. The shortest mating sequence might involve piece sacrifices, and refraining from going that route because of the danger of miscalculation isn't poor sportsmanship.
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-09T01:29:03.707Z
Answers.Text: @JohnColeman My friends and I are very close and competitive. We've been playing chess together both competitively and casually for 3-4 years now and have been playing nearly every day at lunch while we ate in room 114 for all of highschool. Even when our supervisor had a meeting or something we'd play chess online on our phones. So I'd know if they hated it when I do that, I let them do it to me. Because when they do stalemate or mess up, I can rub it in their face. I don't do this to just about anyone. So I should have clarified
Answers.UserDisplayName: ALK003
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-09T01:32:34.557Z
Answers.Text: @HaukeReddmann Exactly, like I told John Coleman, I've been playing chess with my friends from freshmen year to senior year on the same team and also everyday at lunch or even in class. If your friends suddenly stop playing with you because you "toyed" with them then they were just looking for an excuse not to play with you. If they hated it that much they'd resign, or at least tell you they don't like it. Not everything is so serious...
Answers.UserDisplayName: ALK003
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-02-28T22:31:08.683Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-02-28T22:31:08.683Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ALK003
Answers.Body: <p>Why would you choose to not choose to checkmate right away? You are wasting both your time and your opponent's time by not doing so. Tournaments take place in short periods of time, so using that time to keep up your ability to play is important. Unless there is a time constraint, and you are trying to ensure that you will not lose by running out of time, you should checkmate in as few moves as possible.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T02:09:27.403Z
Answers.Text: Indeed, the reasoning why is the key behind it. That being said, I don't think OP is talking about a mate-in-1 situation. I believe OP means something more like bringing pieces into attack mode and gunning for a win. But such maneuvers can of course be risky, especially in short time scenarios!
Answers.UserDisplayName: corsiKa
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-03T10:34:15.807Z
Answers.Text: _"Why would you choose to not choose to checkmate right away?"_ → You may be winning, and you may be _fairly_ sure that a checkmate in X is possible if you play your moves perfectly. You can try and go for it; but you also have the option to capture a couple more pieces, simplify the position, and then be _absolutely_ sure that a checkmate in X is possible and go for it. There's nothing unethical in that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: walen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T02:07:33.313Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-03-02T02:07:33.313Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: vegancheese
Answers.Body: <p>It doesn't hurt to ask your opponent if they'd like to resign or keep playing. I beat a number of better players when they got well ahead and made mistakes, and I lost many games the same way.</p>
  <p>Also, weak players don't get to really study desperate endgames if they're always resigning. One of my chess partners used to consistently draw me into a stalemate when I was well ahead, instead of resigning. If he'd just resigned, or if I'd just wiped him out, I would have never grokked that option.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T04:44:21.957Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-03-02T04:44:21.957Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tumbled Lore
Answers.Body: <p>Your opponent has the option to resign.</p>
  <p>Personally I feel it depends on the motive.  If you deliberately ignoring simple forced mates it seems a bit rude but if you are simply trading pieces to go for a longer/less aggressive and far more certain win that is fine (probably a good idea too).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-03T03:39:27.590Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-03-03T23:56:06.993Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-03-03T23:56:06.993Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: silent-tiger
Body: <p>If you are leading a game, is it ethical to capture your opponent's pieces one by one or go straight for checkmate?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T05:31:31.623Z
Comments.Text: Similar: https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/21955/8063 (my question)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Joshua
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T15:11:20.780Z
Comments.Text: Have you ever seen a cat torture a mouse?  Just for fun?  Like, the hunt is over, the mouse is screwed, but the cat just keeps toying with it - tossing it back up in the air, making it scurry, then jumping on it again... just for its own amusement.  Ask yourself if you're doing that to you opponent.  If you are, you're being a jerk.  If you're not, then don't worry about it.  You generally need to seriously outclass your opponent for this opportunity to present itself.
Comments.UserDisplayName: J...
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T21:22:18.827Z
Comments.Text: That's silly, @J... The chess-playing mouse has the option of resigning, after all.
Comments.UserDisplayName: TonyK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-01T21:59:00.060Z
Comments.Text: @TonyK Well, for the whole thing to work the mouse has to be unaware of the fact that they're being toyed with - that it's not just a genuine, desperate contest for survival.  Like I said, you generally need to seriously outclass your opponent for this opportunity to present itself.  OP is describing a situation where the aggressor takes a circuitous route to victory (in poor taste?) in order to flex that they can pick off their opponent's pieces at will, exploiting mistake after mistake and deliberately drawing out the game into an embarrassment of progressive attrition for the loser.
Comments.UserDisplayName: J...
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T10:27:12.857Z
Comments.Text: @J if you read the answers the most common cited example is players in time trouble choosing the brute force approach to avoid having to think.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Taemyr
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T12:37:00.217Z
Comments.Text: Ignoring the ethical aspect, there is an important tactical aspect: If you are _certain_ you force a checkmate you usually should, because the longer the game goes on the more opportunities there are for you to make a mistake and lose your advantage.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Austin Hemmelgarn
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T13:59:28.350Z
Comments.Text: @Taemyr Indeed, but OP's question is specifically asking where the ethical line is drawn - when it stops being a tactic and it starts being unsportsmanlike.  That line is drawn when you're not playing a tactic at the limit of your skills any longer, but are instead deliberately gas-lighting your opponent, etc, I think.
Comments.UserDisplayName: J...
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-02T16:09:35.103Z
Comments.Text: @J... My parents told me they saw a cat they had doing that exactly. Toying with the very mouse that couldn't get away by letting it run and blocking its path.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Clockwork
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-03T18:45:51.657Z
Comments.Text: @J... Animals don't kill for fun or amusement - humans do.
Comments.UserDisplayName: AcK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-03T21:33:00.330Z
Comments.Text: @ack [Are humans the only animals that kill for pleasure or no purpose?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/15860/34961).  See also [Surplus killing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing).  In cats it's done to train hunting skills.  Calling it "fun" is arguably a debatable anthropomorphism, but, in any case, it's satisfying an instinctive desire that isn't about getting food.
Comments.UserDisplayName: J...
Tags: <etiquette>
Title: When you are winning, is it ethical to not go for a checkmate right away?
ThreadText: # When you are winning, is it ethical to not go for a checkmate right away?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-28)
  
  If you are leading a game, is it ethical to capture your opponent's pieces one by one or go straight for checkmate?
  
  **Tags:** etiquette
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Similar: https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/21955/8063 (my question)  
  > **username_2**: Have you ever seen a cat torture a mouse?  Just for fun?  Like, the hunt is over, the mouse is screwed, but the cat just keeps toying with it - tossing it back up in the air, making it scurry, then jumping on it again... just for its own amusement.  Ask yourself if you're doing that to you opponent.  If you are, you're being a jerk.  If you're not, then don't worry about it.  You generally need to seriously outclass your opponent for this opportunity to present itself.  
  > **username_3**: That's silly, @username_2 The chess-playing mouse has the option of resigning, after all.  
  > **username_2**: @username_3 Well, for the whole thing to work the mouse has to be unaware of the fact that they're being toyed with - that it's not just a genuine, desperate contest for survival.  Like I said, you generally need to seriously outclass your opponent for this opportunity to present itself.  OP is describing a situation where the aggressor takes a circuitous route to victory (in poor taste?) in order to flex that they can pick off their opponent's pieces at will, exploiting mistake after mistake and deliberately drawing out the game into an embarrassment of progressive attrition for the loser.  
  > **username_4**: @J if you read the answers the most common cited example is players in time trouble choosing the brute force approach to avoid having to think.  
  > **username_5**: Ignoring the ethical aspect, there is an important tactical aspect: If you are _certain_ you force a checkmate you usually should, because the longer the game goes on the more opportunities there are for you to make a mistake and lose your advantage.  
  > **username_2**: @username_4 Indeed, but OP's question is specifically asking where the ethical line is drawn - when it stops being a tactic and it starts being unsportsmanlike.  That line is drawn when you're not playing a tactic at the limit of your skills any longer, but are instead deliberately gas-lighting your opponent, etc, I think.  
  > **username_6**: @username_2 My parents told me they saw a cat they had doing that exactly. Toying with the very mouse that couldn't get away by letting it run and blocking its path.  
  > **username_7**: @username_2 Animals don't kill for fun or amusement - humans do.  
  > **username_2**: @ack [Are humans the only animals that kill for pleasure or no purpose?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/15860/34961).  See also [Surplus killing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing).  In cats it's done to train hunting skills.  Calling it "fun" is arguably a debatable anthropomorphism, but, in any case, it's satisfying an instinctive desire that isn't about getting food.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 7 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2021-02-28. Score: 35
  
  There is no rule or law that says that you have to try and checkmate in as few moves as possible and so there is no ethical requirement either.
  
  In fact, if there are just a few pieces left on the board and you are very short of time it makes a lot of sense to take all the opponent's pieces as quickly as possible and only then worry about how you are going to checkmate.
  
  Otherwise if you run out of time while your opponent still has some material left then you are going to lose on time. If your flag falls after you have taken all their pieces then you still get a draw.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_9**: Similarly if I'm in serious time trouble I'm never going to try to find a shorter mate with one queen if I can just easily push a pawn down the board and then do a thoughtless mate with two queens.  
  > **username_10**: In that situation I would even promote to rook, as I found mating with rook and queen even simpler and safer.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2021-03-01. Score: 27
  
  It depends.
  
  The [USCF Code of Ethics](http://www.uschess.org/index.php/Governance/Code-of-Ethics-of-the-US-Chess-Federation-US-Chess.html) states that the following is unethical:
  
  > Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game, in any manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or fair play.
  
  I would take this to mean that if you have a mate in 1 and you see it but purposely don't play it, you're being unethical. However, I would *not* take this to mean that you cannot take your opponent's pieces if this is a legitimate attempt to win (or prevent losing on time.)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_12**: That's a bit dodging the question, isn't it? Because the code doesn't say failing to play at ones best is *always* unethical -- it says it's unethical if it is inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship. But this qualification is exactly what the OP is asking about!  
  > **username_13**: That's about throwing the match, not toying with your opponent.  
  > **username_11**: @Peter-ReinstateMonica The ethical rules say what they say. All I can do is quote them and give my opinion. People here are using terms like "toying with" or "torturing" to describe the behavior in question. I think that if someone is "deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game" to "toy with" or "torture" their opponent, what they are doing is "inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship".  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_14 on 2021-03-01. Score: 16
  
  If a football game was lopsided at halftime, wouldn't it be ethical to call the game?
  
  Since chess has a resigning option, I don't consider any move as unethical. I consider an opponent who doesn't resign in a hopeless position as someone who deserves to be tortured, and it allows me to practice technique. So promote to all knights and practice the unusual mate.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_15**: Be careful with the 50 move rule though  
  > **username_16**: @username_15 And accidental stalemate  
  > **username_17**: My opponent promoting to knights would make me feel it was the correct decision not to resign and play for a slip-up.  
  > **username_18**: Why would someone call a football game at halftime? At least give the losing team some more playing experience.  
  > **username_19**: Does *association football* have such a rule?  Professional American football sure doesn't, though high school (and probably other) leagues usually do.  
  > **username_19**: What's typically frowned upon is *running up the score* with your first teamers.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_20 on 2021-02-28. Score: 9
  
  It depends on level of play and seriousness. If this game is a tournament game but lower rated, I would be happy if my opponent was playing around. This would allow more stalemating chances.
  
  If I seriously didn't want to endure it, I could always resign. If this was a grandmaster game or just a high rated game that was taken seriously, it may be seen as disrespectful and unsportsmanlike to do so.
  
  Just like how there are no real rules against offering a draw, it could be seen as rude to offer a draw when you're clearly losing.
  
  Of course if you're playing a casual game, you can do whatever you want. When I play with my friends I would often give up all my pieces and underpromote some pawns to do fun checkmates like 3 knights and whatnot.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_21**: "When I play with my friends I would often give up all my pieces and underpromote some pawns to do fun checkmates like 3 knights and whatnot." -- and your friends still play with you?  
  > **username_1**: @JohnColeman: I was losing a game, so I sacrificed my last piece to ensure the game ended in KBB vs K. My opponent said I should resign. I said he couldn't win. He couldn't.  
  > **username_22**: @JohnColeman: I know this situation from my youth days. If your friends no longer play with you (remember, *they* started the "insult" by not resigning), they never were your friends in the first place. This falls under the same rules as "flyting" during banter blitz: promote to ten knights with an evil grin on your face and in the next game you are bestest buddies again.  
  > **username_21**: @HaukeReddmann Obviously it depends on context. In most chess contexts, toying with a defeated opponent would be considered poor sportsmanship, though the same could be said about not resigning.  
  > **username_23**: If I gain the upper hand, I prefer to capture and exchange as many pieces as possible, even if there's a possibility of checkmate sooner. This is so I can clear the board and get down to a simpler end-game. If there are lots of pieces still in play, I'm always worried I miss something and make a mistake.  
  > **username_21**: @OscarBravo There is a huge difference between realizing your advantage in a way that prevents counterplay and simply toying with your opponent in a won position. The shortest mating sequence might involve piece sacrifices, and refraining from going that route because of the danger of miscalculation isn't poor sportsmanship.  
  > **username_20**: @JohnColeman My friends and I are very close and competitive. We've been playing chess together both competitively and casually for 3-4 years now and have been playing nearly every day at lunch while we ate in room 114 for all of highschool. Even when our supervisor had a meeting or something we'd play chess online on our phones. So I'd know if they hated it when I do that, I let them do it to me. Because when they do stalemate or mess up, I can rub it in their face. I don't do this to just about anyone. So I should have clarified  
  > **username_20**: @HaukeReddmann Exactly, like I told username_21, I've been playing chess with my friends from freshmen year to senior year on the same team and also everyday at lunch or even in class. If your friends suddenly stop playing with you because you "toyed" with them then they were just looking for an excuse not to play with you. If they hated it that much they'd resign, or at least tell you they don't like it. Not everything is so serious...  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_24 on 2021-03-02. Score: 5
  
  Why would you choose to not choose to checkmate right away? You are wasting both your time and your opponent's time by not doing so. Tournaments take place in short periods of time, so using that time to keep up your ability to play is important. Unless there is a time constraint, and you are trying to ensure that you will not lose by running out of time, you should checkmate in as few moves as possible.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_25**: Indeed, the reasoning why is the key behind it. That being said, I don't think OP is talking about a mate-in-1 situation. I believe OP means something more like bringing pieces into attack mode and gunning for a win. But such maneuvers can of course be risky, especially in short time scenarios!  
  > **username_26**: _"Why would you choose to not choose to checkmate right away?"_ → You may be winning, and you may be _fairly_ sure that a checkmate in X is possible if you play your moves perfectly. You can try and go for it; but you also have the option to capture a couple more pieces, simplify the position, and then be _absolutely_ sure that a checkmate in X is possible and go for it. There's nothing unethical in that.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_27 on 2021-03-02. Score: 4
  
  It doesn't hurt to ask your opponent if they'd like to resign or keep playing. I beat a number of better players when they got well ahead and made mistakes, and I lost many games the same way.
  
  Also, weak players don't get to really study desperate endgames if they're always resigning. One of my chess partners used to consistently draw me into a stalemate when I was well ahead, instead of resigning. If he'd just resigned, or if I'd just wiped him out, I would have never grokked that option.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_28 on 2021-03-03. Score: 3
  
  Your opponent has the option to resign.
  
  Personally I feel it depends on the motive. If you deliberately ignoring simple forced mates it seems a bit rude but if you are simply trading pieces to go for a longer/less aggressive and far more certain win that is fine (probably a good idea too).
  
  
  ---
  
  