Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

I just won a game that I feel pretty scummy about. I was way down in material, but his timer ran out. When should you throw in the towel and resign? Is it ok to play for time (I still had 2 minutes to play with)? 

It is not rude to win on time.

It is not rude to play quickly when your opponent is low on time.

When I am in a winning position, but behind on the clock, I like to sacrifice my extra material so me and my opponent have exactly the same amount of pieces on the board. That way it's fair because you even the playing field.

+1

Games like that are why I play 5/5 blitz. I would pull my hair out if I had a loss like this lol.

Part of the reason you're behind is that your opponent has no control of his clock. They will naturally develop a better position if they put more time into each individual move but the nature of Blitz and Bullet is to have better positions while not using large amounts of time. It's not your fault they sacrificed time for position, that was their choice.

Timed chess is a lot about time. If you spend much time  you can get a winning position, because you spend more time than your opponent. You are in fact gambiting time to get good play. If you gambits more than the compensation you get, you can lose on time. Fair enough.

In bullet you might gambit playstrenght to win on time. Against me it would be a sound sacrifice, probably a winning one.

I try to play strong in 2-1 bullet, and gambits to much time. If I can mate in 30 moves, I often win, but mate in 40 seldom happens , because the clock usually drops at ca move 33. My bulletstatistics is by far my worst. 

Carlsen is very, very fast.

When Carlsen wins in longchess, because the opponent makes inaccurasies in timetrouble, the reason for timetrouble usually is that the man in trouble have been played into a very difficult position. A position that needs much time.

Maybe a helpful comment...: why else do we have clocks? It is an element of the game. Time management. To win on time is ok. Maybe not the most herioc, but a valid way to win.

I wont comment on how this topic has been forumed to death (oops just did sorry) but one shouldnt play timed speed chess if one isn't willing to lose (or win as the case may be) on time. And if one does lose on time one really shouldn't bitch about it, just play faster chess or slower time controls. (Drops microphone)

Here is maybe my best loss ever:

I lost on time , but my position was better. https://live.chess.com/simple?v=2016012101#g=1436716496

I think a good player could have fond a mate ca 10 moves before my clock fell, but I didnt find the time to think.

to me there is no answer that gives the solution to all the situations.

• one player wins in blits by checkmate : a clear win, full merit
• one player wins in blits on time, the position is even, there is still merit in this win, but the winner cannot claim to be the better chess player. 
• one player wins in blits on time and he was hopelessly lost position wise: the winner still won but should refrain from gloating about his chess skills, he is only fast, not good.

In the past i have won lots of bullet games ( other server i quit playing them ) by confusing my opponents with idiotic sacrifices whenever the sacrifice complicated the position.

I never gloated about my ( nonexistent) bullet skills, the wins were still wins but the merit was nada, it was only fun to do that 

not long ago i proposed remise to a guy that did not merit to loose in my opinion, the not so nice fellah ( filipino, sigh again ... ) took the remise and buzzed off, no tnx no gg no appreciate the gesture, just take what you can take for free and run with it, one reason to  loose every sympathy for the next one and finish it without mercy.

Why was "time" factor ever introduced in the game? If there was no time limit, then a losing player could say, "I'm not gonna move. Because I'm gonna lose." So a time limit has to exist! And consequently rules pertaining to what what happens when the time limit is exceeded also has to be laid forth. And its pretty logical to award the opponent the win, IF he has a position from which a win can be a possibility (king + knight, king + bishop doesn't qualify). If one argues that the decision should take the position into account, then you also have to consider the ratings of the player. And there can be many many positions where the players would just quarrel over each other by saying, "I would have one" and "You don't have the brains to come up with that move." 

I do not say that it is not allowed but what unnerves me beyond limits is when a player that is clearly lost hops around like a crazyman hoping for the clock to accomplish what his failing brain could not...  tsk, tsk, tsk ....  

Yes, very unpleasant to lose that way. Like there are many other unpleasant ways to lose. In fact losing is really unpleasant. (so much that most don't even want to spell it correctly) But you lost. Happened to most everyone I guess. Get over it and play another game. Mate the guy inside the allowed time!

Why else do we have clocks? Mainly, to ensure that we get to go home. The opposite pole of this question goes back to the pre-clock days, when players might just sit there for hours trying to tire out or bore their opponent.

One notorious character was Elijah Williams, "the Bristol Sloth". IIRC he's the one whom Paulsen was playing and, after sitting there so long that he was almost covered in cobwebs waiting for Williams to get the lead out, Paulsen murmured "Excuse me, why don't you move?" At which Williams said "Oh, is it really my move?" 

If you must play one-minute chess then I don't care whether you lose by checkmate, timeout, or because the board caught fire. In long-format chess though I personally would not push for a win on time if the game itself offered no winning chances.

As Alexander Alekhine said,

The clock is part of the board.

After winning just 1 game you can't claim anything no matter how you've won it. But if you lead 50-0 against the guy you are definitely a better chess player for this time controls even if all games were won by time in lost position.