I’m playing a game against a Brazilian guy on gameknot. He and I were making moves at a rate of about one or two a day until he made some bad moves and started down the road to destruction (a phrase Fritz has used more than once in analyzing my games). It’s now mate in three and he’s apparently going to make me wait the full 14 days he has for every move. 
At least he’s still apparently playing it? 
“Juries, ere now, have convicted men, and judges have hanged them, to save time. Railway companies at the present day break our legs, and sometimes our necks, to save time. Our chess players are the only men in the country who disregard it.” [size=70](A. Cantab, Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1852, as quoted in Second Edition Oxford Companion to Chess, “Timing of Moves.”[/size])
I am indeed fortunate, then. 
Isn’t it bad form to comment on a game in progress?
So said Rustam Kamsky, many times.
I have had a few opponents on that site who have done that too me, nothing you can do but set the conditional moves and block them so you don’t play them again. Not exactly sportsman like quality on their part but what can you do?
It’s a forced mate in three. It’s bad form to not resign. 
He is waiting for you to die. You should ask, with concern, if he is ill.
I symphathize as I had a very similar thing happen a couple years ago, on a differnent (but apparently similarly-configured) site. I had a three-pawn lead in a minor piece endgame; without describing it further I’ll just say it was a ridiculously lost position for my opponent. (That, even though I’m a C player. In fact any E player would clearly win this position against a Master, should it have somehow come up.)
My opponent was making a move about every 5 days (maximum allowed: 14). Even though he should have resigned, I never suggested it. Instead, I very politely asked him to increase his playing tempo - “if that is at all possible within other constraints that you have”… or something like that. He tersely responded back (without moving for two more weeks): “Patience is a virtue.” And from that point forward, he literally waited for the last hour of so of his 14-week allowance to make each move. 
Jerk.
I had little choice but to continue or resign myself (which I wouldn’t do). He continued to make his snail-paced advance to defeat, until finally (after several moves and several months(!)) I woke up on a glorious August morning to see that he had forgotten to move (I assume) - and in essence, his clock had fallen. What a great relief. As someone else here suggested, of course I will never engage him again - and I also took the opportunity to warn many others on the site about him. 
The evidence of my game was conveniently available as clear evidence that he was to be avoided.
These scenarios are at least mildly irritating on their face. But the bigger problem lies in the fact that these opponents are “occupying” one of the game slots that you are allotted (paid for) when you join the site. You have a finite number of games available (upgradable for a cost, but always finite). So this is more than rude - it is vindictive and selfish. 
You are lucky, at least, that you see an end in a few more moves. In my case it would have still taken me about 18-20 moves to reach mate. I was fortunate that my bad-sport opponent missed his timing, once, ending the marathon at about the six-month point into the game. Good grief!
Enjoy your own little checkmate dance, some time in late March. 
If his remarks invited a comment on the position, yes, that would be bad form. Mutual silence would be better. But in this case, you can have no knowledge of the position nor of the opposing player’s identity and cannot comment.
I can tell you that I have games against Messrs. Happy, Sleepy, Grumpy, Dopey, Bashful, and Doc; and that I may lose to Doc because he is rated two classes higher than me and he played an absolute spoiler to my strategy, but my chances are otherwise fine. Even if you know who I am playing against, I don’t see why my comment to you would arouse any concern.
Sure, and he didn’t like Gata’s opponents passing remarks with other tournament players, whether they were about chess or not The TD should have told him if he wanted to accost tournament players, he should do it outside the area where the TD is responsible for discipline.
Politely or not, you shouldn’t have asked him to speed up. If you wanted an opponent that moved faster then you should have played a faster time control.
Note: I’m not defending deliberately playing slow in a hopeless position. I hate it when someone on ICC just sits there and lets their clock run out. However, from what you wrote, it doesn’t seem like he was stalling until you asked him to speed up.
Just set all future games to have no more than 2-3 days per move then. Don’t know why you set it up for 14.
I didn’t give all the data. He had been moving about once every 2-3 days early in the game, still slower than most, but well within both rules and etiquette; but then when he started to get in a hopeless position, slowed it down to about 5-6 days per move. And he actually changed his time setting mid-game (without comment to me) from 7 to 14 days.
So to answer the other poster’s question - this site uses the maximum setting between the two players (which I think is fine), and it can be changed on the fly, without mutual consent (which in my opinion is a flaw). This person decided he wanted to make it 14 days in the middle of the game, and after provoked by my question, I guess, exercised that full 14 days… repeatedly.
We will agree to disagree on this one perhaps, but I felt like I was being respectful and he was abusing me - and I also heard he had done it to at least two others on that site. Likewise, I think the originator of this thread is taking some abuse - but given his game situation, it is more manageable.
The proper thing to do is resign in a won position. Thank your opponent and move on.
I know of people who do that, but doesn’t that reward legal but otherwise annoying behavior?
It does appear to reward cowardice but it keeps you in a better frame of mind.
A quick resignation in a winning position may not take into account somebody that still thinks they have a realistic chance to save the game. At one US Open I spent about a half-hour sure that I (an expert at the time) had a drawn ending against an IM. As it turned out the IM (who was also burning the candle at both ends by attending the governance workshops) blew a tempo and thus allowed the draw, but prior to that I was dead lost. It wasn’t until after the game that I found out that I had a resignable position. There have been multiple times I’ve been on the other end of that misperception and I don’t let it bother me, but rather simply make allowances for my opponent not yet seeing that they are already lost.
There have also been numerous games where my opponents (often higher-rated) thought they had an obvious win, but ended up extremely surprised when I found resources that ended up with them getting a draw (or sometimes a loss) even without their making blunders. At my club I’m often called in during analysis to see if a supposedly lost position still has some legitimate play (finding occasional wins from those positions does tickle my fancy).
Mis-analysis isn’t limited to OTB play. I’ve seen postal games that A-players and experts thought had an easily determined result but actually those games still had the jury out on that result.
One game required about 5 minutes of analysis (from both a high A-player and a low master) to determine that it was easiily won. Then the two people asked me to take a look at the game and in the next five minutes I showed them three different stalemate defenses that negated all of their analysis. Finally after three more hours each of analysis they did discover a forced win, but I wouldn’t be perturbed if the opponent thought it was still worth playing out.
Yes, you have the courage to play and understand the possible outcomes. Brian is implying his opponent is not going down as fast as he would like. If he is confident of the outcome then resigning should not be a problem. He does not get to take a scalp here.
Actually, we don’t disagree at all. His changing the timing midgame makes it a whole different ballgame. He shouldn’t do that without your consent. I agree that is a flaw in the system.