No it's not bad etiquette at all. A player being higher rated does not entitle them to automatically get the result they want, even if the position seems to indicate such a result.
And in the rare case your opponent gets offended by this, congratulations. You've just gained a psychological edge.
I've answered a very similar question here
My take is that GM try to avoid calculating, and try to rely on their superior positional understanding. So striving for a tactical position, seems like a good bet. Your game seems to support this hypothesis.
Here is interesting story, that involved somebody I used to know over the internet and Kasparov:
Generally, the simul-giver needs to keep the games as different from each other as possible. That means the opening themselves are less important, as long as they are different openings.
The simul-takers can cooperate with each other; I recall the following story from Tim Krabbé's website:
It made me think of a story. A grandmaster once played a 10-board ...
First off, Kasparov is not a big fan of losing. That's an important detail. I wont weigh in too much on his personality, but if you look at the comments on that video, there are quite a few strong opinions about what kind of person he is.
I don't know what the rules were for that simul, but if they were the same as the Kasparov's current website:
You could do that on FICS, here's how:
"Simuls" = simultaneous chess matches; playing more than one opponent at a
time. It is possible to play more than one opponent simultaneously on the
chess server. Below are sections for Starting a Simul and for Joining a
Users using an interface that only supports a single board (that is if
I don't think FIDE would be involved in regulating such events because they are not rated.
I found this interesting PDF with some notes, although I think they could be improved. For example, it is not clear if the player loses the game after three passes.
The exhibitor plays the white pieces on each board.
Do not touch any chessman until the exhibitor ...
The idea that there is a 5 second limit on thinking time in a simul is just nonsense. Early in the simul when the ordinary players have plenty of time while the simul giver is going round all the other players the player is expected to have his move ready and play immediately the simul giver arrives at the board.
That said, it is not unheard of for a player ...
This is more a comment than an answer.
The attached fragment is Mikhail Tal commenting his blindfold simul against 10 first category (approximately 1800-2000 Elo) players - as the match goes, board by board. The fragment is a part of 1968 documentary on limits of human mental abilities.
The movie is in Russian; if there is an interest, I may try to ...
The exhibitor usually gets more time. Not really to compensate for the time walking from board to board takes, but because he potentially has all of the clocks running at the same time!
The most famous clock simultaneous exhibitions were the ones in which Kasparov took on national teams, including those of the Czech Republic and Israel. According to this ...
If I understand your proposal, I think that the constraint that you are imposing would make it too easy to defeat the poor GM. Let's imagine the following pair of games with the GM playing Black:
1. e4 e5
2. Qh5 Nf6
1. e4 e5
2. Qf3 Nf6
Qxf7 on the first game is "checkmate" because even though Black would simply capture the queen in a normal ...
This question involves the human mind's memory, so to start, let's play a quick game. Look at the line below for 1 second, and then look away immediately.
G R T A O H V I L P
Now try to recall as many of the letters as you can.
Now do the same thing for the next line (look for 1 second):
Fish Table Plate Water Mouse Cookie Scroll Piece Fan Ball
Yes, one-on-one simultaneous competitions exist. For example, you can find them in correspondence chess. One modality is as two game matches, where you play your opponent with white in one game and with black in the other. Similarly for friendly matches between federations of different countries, with two games for each board.
There are also several websites ...
As of 29 April 2020, Chess.com supports playing online simuls (simultaneous exhibitions) against human opponents.
To enable, users must select the setting "Play Multiple Games at a Time" at chess.com/settings/live.
Enabling the "Auto Switch Game" setting, "Chess.com will automatically take the simulgiver to the game in which they ...
There are several techniques that a lot of masters commonly use in simuls.
(1) Know the players. Lower rated players can be confused easily with unsound play/attacks, leading to quick wins. You will also know which players to watch out for and spend more time on. Kasparov was very ardent on this point, and was very upset that a 2200 player posed as a 1600 ...
Generally, you should belong to a club if you wish to play titled players in simuls. The more active your club is the more likely the club is able to do, which includes paying titled players to host simuls.
Other than that, you could consider hosting the event. Simply contact titled players on sites like chess.com and the ICC to see if they're interested. ...
A GM that had many simultaneous games experience is the best man to answer your question. But as a chess fan, this is my idea. The best strategy is playing your best game. Play the opening which you know it thoroughly.
Usually GMs avoid positional variants and they try to play tactical and open games in simultaneous matches. I heard from one GM, they force ...
Chess.com allows nearly unlimited simultaneous chess games at the correspondence speed of 1-14 days per move. I believe they allow you to play live timed games against multiple opponents, but that is in a paid tier of membership that I don't subscribe to.
That's a trick once performed by Derren Brown.
This article calls it "mirroring technique" and claims it is more than 25 years old, but I don't think this is a very well known term. If you are interested in more information about this trick you should probably google "Derren Brown Chess".
The answer to the headline is definitely "yes". I would be very surprised if there is a top player who is unable to play 10 blindfold games.
Playing seven masters and beating (all of) them is a different issue. Remember that Kasparov limits the rating of his opponents at simultaneous exhibitions to under 2000 Elo. Of course he can beat much stronger players ...
I played in an untimed simul against Bent Larsen in 1972. We had to have our move ready when he got to our board (out of some 20+ boards), with the option of one or two passes if necessary. I assume this could be decided upon differently in advance though by the exhibitor. Ultimately I was the last player left. I was probably the highest rated player of ...
In the game linked in the OP, play would have likely continued 16...exd5 17.exd5 Nxd5 18.Nxd5 Bxd5 19.Rfd1. Black can try 19...Bb6, although the chances to create anything serious against the doubled b pawns are slim.
However, a simul is a team game. Accepting a draw means there is one less board for the strong player to think over. As a consequence, one ...
Just in case it gets deleted, @shivksy left a helpful comment that seems to partially answer the question. It would make a good answer in itself in my opinion.
Here is the comment in it's full glory:
"Fascinating topic. An answer may lie within the book amazon.com/Thought-Choice-Chess-Adriaan-Groot/dp/4871877582. One of the observations ...
It is up to the organizer to decide on the rules, so anything is possible. A lot will depend on the level of players vs level of the exhibitor, so it is difficult to generalize. Most often simul exhibitions are fun events and rules are rather relaxed and participants cooperative.
In a typical simul players are expected to make their move promptly (e.g. ...
Although I've never seen such a simul in action, I've heard of a similar concept before. The person who explained it to me called it something like "walking clock simul", but I doubt if there is an official name.
He applied it to a single round-robin (instead of a double round-robin) and a line of boards (instead of a grid), but the idea remains the same.