Though when Magnus Carlson does it, the insult is deliberate, but he's got the skills to back it up. Like "go ahead and develop, I'm just going to spend the first 10 moves sending my king on a meandering path that just ends up swapping king and queen's positions and then I'll win anyways".

Fwiw, I also think the idea that someone should resign after a mistake is silly. If you want to take offense that I think there's a chance either I could come back or you'll make a similar impact mistake of your own, then go ahead and be offended and beat me if you can. Getting pissed off about that might just make you more sloppy anyways.

Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that the act of getting offended they don't resign is a tactic to get them to resign in the first place. And makes for more boring games because seeing games to completion is interesting.

I just thought the image of it applying to this specific case where a master plays against a novice and resigns after letting them gain an advantage was funny. Of course the son would have wanted to keep playing when he was finally up a queen. The deadpan didn't land, but that's a risk I accepted when I embraced dryer humour. I'm not going to resign.

Yeah sure the king came out. I'd still not call it a gambit, this is a far cry from a Smith Morra or a Budapest gambit. Or a Vucoviç gambit where white sometimes gives up the Queen for 3 pieces.

If I captured a Knight with my Queen and failed to see it could be recaptured, I'd definitely say I blundered my Queen. Even when people go cave exploring on b7 and get a pawn+Rook for the Queen, it's a blunder and leads to a clearly winning position.

Nothing is ever free in Chess, capturing a Queen will always cost at least 1 tempo.

Some people will resign, but everyone came to play and miracles do happen. But you agreed on that, so I think we're on the same page.