Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

better to play strong moves than rush:

give them hard enough problems to solve & they may make a mistake or run out of time anyways;

miss something while hurrying & the tables will turn.

I know the feeling on both sides when there is a heavy imbalance at timeout.

But both sides agreed to the same amount of time to 'get the job done'. If one side spends more time than available to make better moves, at the expense of time management, then that's the way the game goes. So I am okay with taking the win, and have to be okay with accepting the loss.

The only thing that would be crummy is if one side is just mindlessly moving around the board rather than playing an honest game to win. Though I do understand when that happens a bit near the end.

kk

You should resign only when there is no more hope.

If there is the possibility of winning on time, there is still hope

It's part of the game

     First and foremost, the board is more important than the clock. I would rather play chess without the clock than play clock without chess. However, the clock is fair. Without it, all games ara one person just stops playing and sits there. Part of chess is balancing the clock and bad time management is only your fault. Clicking 'play' automatically says, "I want to play and agree to the rules of the site I am on," if you don't want to lose to time, play with high time controls or don't play at all.

Ok so, there's no reason as to why you can't stall the game. Remember: they're refusing to resign in a totally lost position, there's no reason why you can't have a bit of fun at their expense haha

Hi,

time is one of the resources available to you as a chess player. And you can use it for your profit in whatever way you seem optimal from a strategic perspective.

Don't worry about rudeness/etiquette - please understand that this is what people need to get over in their path to professionalization. Time is simply a tactical tool - that's why there's flagging. It's very common at the highest level. Another thing to do is that when you have a lot of time and your opponent doesn't, is to wait until you have twice the amount of time left as your opponent before playing on. The chance is there that the opponent gets bummed out and resigns out of impatience.

Did you know that some grandmasters sometimes took half an hour just before playing the first move. The point was to irk the opponent, get him out of the comfort zone. Bronstein was known to do that. Chess is also about psychological power - it teaches amateurs to supersede emotionality.

Nailed it. Etiquette is a hypocrisy.

egyetértek

In the olden days (the Romantic Era of chess), resigning was loathed - it was considered a sign of weakness. Ending the game prematurely, as only a coward would.

An honorable player fought to the bitter end, and accepted his fate either way, with bravery and panache all the while.

I am just starting but I don't see a problem winning with time. I just played a game were very early in, I noticed the higher ranking opponent was taking along time to move. So I factored that in and had 4:03 left when his timer ran out. I played when they had about 3 min I started playing to stall and ended up sacrificing alot but it worked. Maybe because im a rookie? 

Effeminacy. Only limp-wristed girly-men resigned.

Knuckle-dragging, hairy-backed MEN always fought to the bitter end.

Look through the databases at games played before the twentieth century. What percentage end in checkmate? My hypothesis is that such data when gathered will not support your claim.

Hududu

Two examples: 

Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky, which took place in London in 1851

Paul Morphy and Duke Karl of Brunswick and Count Isouard, which took place in 1858

The Romantic Era of chess was definitely characterized by a strong cultural norm against resigning. They are a testament and an artifact to the bravery and style that were so highly valued in the 19th century.

Nietzsche covers such a thing in Twighlight of the Idols in his "...Good things are exceedingly costly!" prose

The idea of the honourable player not resigning was more a thing of the 1850s and before, carried through to the beginning of the 20th C only due to a few remaining romantic types. The more pragmatic era of Paulsen and Staunton was dominant later in the century.

I have a load of old Illustrated London News newspapers dating back to the early 1840s. I'll read the chess columns one day and see if it mentions romanticism and death before dishonour.

Interesting, never thought about it that they had daily or weekly chess columns back then. 25 years before the USA Civil war ended in 1865.

Winning on time by pre-moving randomly when you were wayyyy down in material, had only 3 seconds left compared to their 30 seconds, is the sweetest victory in blitz. And winning on time by randomly moving in classic chess must feel even better.