Cheap way to win?

I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but i frequently play short-timed games, and when time starts running low for both my opponent and I, my opponent decides to sac one of his valuable pieces (usually to cause check) and sure enough, I run out of time. I do not play blitz games in real life (at least not in tournys) so I'm not entirely sure, is this a cheap way to win? I'm not usually expecting this random sacrifice obviously; in an OTB game im sure a random sacrifice would be much easier to handle as far as time goes. So is this way of winning a tactical move, or just a cheap way to gain points?

In any game with a clock, time is just as much a part of the rules as the position on the board. If you are thrown off by such sacs, then that's the way it goes. If you prefer the outcome to be based on the position, you will have to play with longer time controls to give yourself more time to think. This is why some people do not consider any blitz chess to be "real" chess.

I think in bullet this is a legitimate tactic to win (call it a "clock sac"). I don't think this is done too often in blitz (except one player is in big time trouble and the other has plenty of time). In long games it is sometimes considered sportsmanlike not to flag your opponent. A few days ago I witnessed a tournament games in which my fellow club player was very short of his flag falling (on move 31, 40 were needed). The position was equal but complex, his opponent could have played just some waiting moves and wait for the flag to fall, but she accepted the draw offer which was highly regarded among both competing clubs.

Agreed with the notion that it really depends on sportsmanship vs. what's at stake.  In a real OTB game with a slow time control, I think flagging somebody in a mostly equal position is not too classy.  

However at any blitz/bullet time control, the clock happens to be a more significant  "piece" and I think it's fair punish anybody who doesn't manage their time as well as I do....by ANY means (clock sacs!) necessary.

There is nothing wrong with flagging anybody at any time where time is out; having a lot of time is very important, and in any tournament game nobody should be allowed to use more time than you, which is what you would contradict by not flagging your opponent. If you got a great position but took way more time than your opponent, then you cannot complain when you are forced to "finish" the position taking little time to avoid running out.

Time has screwed me more than once, but that is a part of the game. Because otherwise horrible "time moves" can often be played with impunity in blitz and bullet, those time settings tend to depend less on having a great strategy and more on making moves that agree with the clock. Therefore, they should not be taken too seriously for evaluating all parts of your chess strength.

In a game there are two parts: the game, and its supplemental strategies, itself; and the practical factor -- I am involved with both in the same game. One moment in a game I'm rambling to myself about pawn structures, while in a later moment I'm up a pawn but am fiercly banging the clock right after I play my 5 second move hoping it's no tactical blunder. My opponent on the other hand is working on a completely unjustified kamikaze attack on my kingside while I struggle to advance my pawn. When time is low the game indeed becomes less of a science and more like a sport-like fight.

On the board I am totally in it to win it, yet off I want to find the truth of the positions arisen, sometimes respectfully with my opponent; it is an art; a science; fight; sport; so many things in so many different ways -- I don't disagree with the great players who wanted to classify chess in those ways. In the heat of battle, so many things can happen that, when you look at it afterwards, you laugh at how the position should never have turned out that way; the practical struggle is a huge part of the game, and low time and thus the pressure to prove something out of your position quickly is one of those parts of it that can make a game very intense and, ultimately, so satisfying to win.

I am all for winning at any means (though not cheating).  Sacking your piece for a check and time on the clock in blitz is a valid tactic, and I win 95% of my blitz games on time in losing positions, the clock is part of the game deal with it.  I would never give my opponent a draw in an equal position where they are low on time.  They used all their time and you didn't, why should you do them any favors by giving them a draw.  Make them sweat through time pressure, I have beat at least one master this way. But to get back to the point yes it is a valid tactic in blitz, don't complain just play faster.

Yes I agree. I play bullet games strictly for fun. There is no comparison to OTB blitz games and chess.com blitz games (pre move, computer mouse vs hand) Theres no such thing as pre move in real life chess so yes i agree its no longer real chess. But nonetheless its still fun (most of the time)

I agree; but I think even in longer games you have every right to incorporate the clock into your game; the time pressure is part of what makes a game of chess a fight.

 Yea totally. Whenever I play in OTB tournys I always try to utilize the clock i.e. move quickly in moves that take little to no calculation, and end up using that time when it really matters the most, whenever in the game that may be.

Of course it's not a cheap way to win. That's part of the game.

If you want to play real chess, try long time controls. Then you can actually calculate and not worry about nonsense like that.

You know what's weird -- sometimes those "undeserved" wins can actually be really satisfying for me! As someone who rarely makes comebacks against decent opposition, it felt really nice a few months ago to, down two pawns, maintain my position as long as possible, but use his time pressure against him; keep him on his toes with tactical threats -- and guess what, he runs right into a crude but intensely satisfying knight fork involving a pinned pawn, which won a rook. Honestly I can't remember another time anything like that ever happened to me, other than in games against beginners.

I guess it felt good because it was like you had to create chances out of nowhere; when the position wasn't backing you up like it normally would when converting a positional advantage.

It is a differet variation of the game.  Therefore, it requires a differet strategy.  The clock is a part of the game>

I think not only is it within the rules of the game, but, at least in most cases (there are probably some exceptions that I momentarily can't think of), perfectly ethical.

To not exercise that right would be respecting the strength of their play and position, yes. But at the same time it would reward them for taking extra time to achieve and finish that position, which gives them an unfair advantage.

You don't really flag them; they flag themselves by using too much time. That said, in an OTB, slower time control, the other player would likely not throw out a random sac, hoping to flag the opponent. It would likely be something that makes or keeps the position very complex requiring more thought. If the game is that interesting and the opponent flags, mark up the win and continue playing, if you both have the energy. In a tournament situation, you play for the win.

The partial solution to this is increments or delay, though you can argue the game gets sloppy with the faster moves and may not be as satifying.

In rated play, using your time effectively is part of your rating. If you can't do it then you lose games on time. If the game is that good, play after the time win and finish the game. In something like live chess, that might mean using the shared analysis board after but you can still get a good game in.

Wonder what one these two US Championship contenders feels about getting force-flagged at a high-stakes event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ

I think that may be a different situation, somewhat. I can understand the need to finish an event in a timely manner and determine who is the champion but I think that discussion would be if using Armageddon rules to determine the winner is a good idea.

If it had instead been the last round with classical time controls and one of the players was close to flagging in a tough position, then I think the opinion of the players would have been that it was part of the game and part of effective time usage.

Agree that it was a different case with different parameters ..  but wanted that wacky video to reinforce the view that that you can't agree to a set of conditions / rules for a game at the start  and then conveniently call things "fair but un-sportsmanlike" after a result that didn't sit well with you. 

I earned my clock advantage fair and square by managing my time better. If you didn't do the same ... shouldn't you be penalized at all?  If you're not in it to win it, why did you bother playing?