I have frequently seen people suggest that stalemate be treated as a win for the stalemating player, but I’ve never seen it suggested that it be treated as a win for the stalemated player.
Oh, no? Take a look here.
Bill Smythe
From “A Short History of Chess” by Henry A. Davidson:
Did this topic in Empire Chess this quarter with a great article on chess manners by Neal Bellon. nysca.net.
I don’t know if this qualifies, but I’ll admit myself publicly to what some would deem is "poor chess etiquette"coming from me.
In the pass, intended as a harmless personal style, I would tip the opponent’s king over for chechmate. I realized that my younger brother, and possibly other people too, might find this annoying and offensive, even when none of it was truly intended. Of course, I’ve only done with with my brother, who was very vocal about it, and a few of my cousins, who weren’t, but after having given it some thought, I speculate that some people might understandably be irritated by this, as well: I think it comes off as a bit “in your face”.
What are your thoughts on this?
That aside, what I really wanted to say when I entered this topic is, there’s an etiquette broken that is so utterly overplayed to the point that it should be a cliche. Surprisingly, it’s so ubiquitous, and no one really cares that something so puerile and simply wrong is still happening: it should be obvious that when you play online, you play genuine games using your 100% own creative and logical techniques to carry out good solid games, but all too often, people use a computer chess program to help them through their online games. They don’t necessarily let the program play the game for them, because that would be too obvious, since computer programs having the ability to “not make mistakes” would expose the weaker player’s aid behind the counter. That’s a different issue, which I have at least two examples of for another thread another time. Better yet, these cheaters half-involve their chess programs to provide recourse moves during sticky situations in games that they (the cheating players) get themselves into when playing a stronger player. Typically, rather than directly copying the moves that the computer has made after evaluating millions of forking, skewering, pinning, discovery and double-check maneuvers, these cheaters would make a half-witty move that are merely based on the likeness of the move that the computer program makes instead; as to make it harder for them to be confronted for using a program to help play their games for them. Often times, when they see how the computer eludes the harder opponent’s clever tactics, they don’t have to make as strong of a move that the computer makes, since a move that is fairly strong based on the logicality of the computer’s move is decent to help them (the cheaters) capture pieces and gain material points. Hey, at least they’re decent chess players who understood well enough the techniques the computer was performing, right? They’re not completely guilty of cheating since they were still relying on their current chess logic, right?
What really gets to me is that they think they’re the first ones to come up with such brilliant stupidity as this. 
Hey, it’s why I don’t play online chess very much anymore. While I admit that there are actual decent incidences where a weaker player than I having unexpectedly delivered a clever move that he/she nor I had previously seen had helped him or her win a game against me as a stronger player, I’m sorry. There is no way that, on too many often occasions, players who has a rating of 700-900 would candidly and integrally deliver clever 1000+ techniques out of the blues during midgame and beat a higher-rating player as I am at a 1075 rating (even if 1075, in comparison to these folks on this website, isn’t really all that good, I don’t doubt.) Once in 20 to 25 games of these occurrences is understandable, and I full-heartedly commend these genuine players for their discovered powerful tactics and using them so well against me. Once in 4 to 8 games with these occurrence is just outright moronic.
Hmm, this is just a bit in-your-face, isn’t it? I’m glad you don’t do it any more. 
As for the online cheating with computers, that’s a problem without a solution. I think the best course is just not to play online. Get back into OTB where the real men and women are.
Bill Smythe
Of course it depends on what the rules are. ICCF correspondence play allows engines, and they are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to not lose. There are apparently still some players who try to play without engines; that’s why you see IMs rated 1600. Still, it is completely wrong to say that engines, even the best, have the ability to “not make mistakes”. Consider this game: https://www.iccf.com/game?id=573182. From move 47 to the end, various engines said that I was between 2 and 4 1/2 pawns ahead, but strong (human) players that I showed after the game said it was dead drawn.
Alex Relyea
Computer cheating in rampant enough like you pointed out. Unless someone plays a major portion of the game with a computer, it would be hard to spot. There are times in many games where one opponent is just stumped, not so much if they’re losing, but if they can’t really find a way to progress, they might think to themselves it’s ok to have the computer suggest one move, but it turns out that one move is probably going to be killer in a drawish looking position. It’d be too obvious for someone to break out an engine for a serious chain of moves that suddenly makes you look like you switched from being 1400 to 3200 with some amazing tactical line that a 2500 player would take 20 minutes to find, and your game goes from losing moves to suddenly crushing.
So I’d say computer cheating is more prevent when someone just can’t find a decent like to progress, rather than trying to salvage a clearly losing game.
Still, a LOT of games can be described as getting to the point where a player can’t really find a decent line, so they’re stuck with either staying drawish, or risking doing a subtle bad move that the opponent can capitalize on.
deleted… sort of realized not something i wanted up.
I’m afraid I don’t understand. Can you please elaborate?
Alex Relyea
I don’t know where you got that idea exactly, but it can be poor form to keep offering draws. One standard piece of advice is, once you have offered a draw and your opponent has declined, you should not again offer a draw until your opponent does, unless the situation has changed radically since your first offer.
In this case, though, it could reasonably be argued that your opponent being now down to his last 3 seconds does constitute a reasonably radical change in the situation.
Bill Smythe
Agreed.
IT was my first game so i didnt know the rule.
I’d say each time the board dynamics changed, each time even more in my favor…
but my opponent wanted to play on, so he did.
i was too nervous to win, and too new to know the etiquette.