Not at the ELO level where the one who tries to ”prove a point” ends up delivering a stalemate 50% of the time.

As someone said, you’re attacking a level of players that have managed to drag their rating below the starting point, i.e. who may be children or disabled. It does not matter which level you feel you are at, when this is the level you’re playing against.

I’m afraid you may be the toxic one and everyone is ”proving that point” to you.

You can completely expect a 200 rated opponent to squander their position with a stalemate. That’s what matters here. Additionally, 200 rated opponents may have no idea that resigning is a usual practice and it does nothing to passive-aggressively ”prove a point” to them. Besides saying a lot about you.

From a 2,000 rated opponent, you generally can’t expect that. You will just resign.

I’ve never once said that rating on a website demonstrates your true skill, but nevertheless it correlates with what you can expect from an opponent with a certain rating. You’re just strawmanning at this point because you’re salty about your skill not being recognised.

”Everyone but me is toxic”

Besides being toxic, you’re still not even remotely getting it because you’re so upset.

Your opponent, even if they know anything about chess etiquette (good chance they don’t), has a reason to believe there’s a good chance you will fuck up and stalemate. Because it’s what often happens at the level, regardless if you think you belong at the level or not.

This very sub is filled with regular posts with examples about players who thought they were completely winning and then ran into a stalemate.

This reply really made it clear that you’re on the autism spectrum (which is fine, but the way you behave isn’t). Only your logic is logical and objective, even when it is explained to you clearly why someone else might see it in another way, you’re unable to see it.