Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

I imagine so. 

We all have our opinions of course. 

But anyone playing time restrictions, complaining they lost on time, is a moron. 

That isn't so. It depends what time restrictions. All chess has time restrictions, basically. At some levels it's normal to exploit them and in some situations it's really the sign of an idiot. Or a moron maybe?

What's worse, idiot or moron? I've a feeling that idiot was stupider than moron. There was a league of precedence of these things, starting with feeble-minded.

Exacty.

You hit the nail on the head. All games on this site have time restrictions, we know this before we start the game. 

So like you say, no one should ever complain about losing on time because every game on this site is time limited. 

Thanks. 

Winning on time is acceptable whatever the time control because, frankly, if you get into time trouble with an hour on your clock at the start of the game you deserve to lose just as much as if you play a 3 minute game and get into time trouble.  One could argue even more so given how much time you had.  You should simply be able to render the clock irrelevant if you wish and make it impossible for your opponent to win on time.  If you don't then of course they'll go for it.  Why sit there for 60 minutes or 2 hours playing a game of chess only to agree to a draw just because it is somehow 'unsporting' to win on time?!  What a spectacular waste of 2 hours of someone's time if they aren't even going to take a win when it is available.  Not that winning an online game of chess means anything, but then playing one doesn't either.  Not a lot really matters apart from eating, breathing and sleeping if we go down that route!

The main reason that I play bullet is for those few times that I can win on time by throwing away my queen and rooks with spite checks.

Agree or disagree, like it or not like it, you make me think about things I haven't thought about before. All chess games do have a time limit, which I never really thought about before. These days I don't play games with a clock, but there is still a time limit because nobody wants to play a game forever.

So, if I'm playing a game with a girlfriend or family member, how do I tell if they (or maybe me) are idiots and morons based on how much time we use?

I'm only very superior, I fear. "Very superior"? That's a handle devised by people not too good at English. Also, the gradations they describe are completely mistaken. They haven't a clue. Borderline effort at best.

A horse has an IQ higher than 24, by quite some way. I think that's roughly a cat.

Don't go by Levine and Marks, that's all. But do you really think that your girlfriends and family members may be idiots? That would be harsh!

I honestly don't think we can easily gauge it without a clock because the clock provides an adrenalin factor. Anyway, when I'm feeling dopey, I know I think about a hundred times slower than I do when I'm feeling reasonably alert, and when I'm very alert about five times faster than that. Since we're all put together in roughly the same way, we're probably all roughly the same on that, except some people find it more or less difficult than others do to a achieve a really fluid comprehension and assessment of a rapidly changing environment.

I'm one of the those who thinks that intelligence levels are not fixed, unless ceilings are applied by some form of injury, poisoning or so-on. I believe we all have the ability to think badly or well and that provided we aren't too old to do it, like in our 80s, we can all make up for lost time to some degree, even though intelligence levels are largely set before we're one year old. I think it's almost completely down to nurture rather than nature.

The idea that everything within the rules counts as sporting behaviour - well go to your local open tournament, get a lost position and then spend 1 hour taking five minutes a move defending K + Q vs K. Totally legal, but then take a straw poll of whether or not your behaviour counts as sporting.

In quickplay or long play games, the (recognised!) problem of people playing for time in dead drawn positions was solved long ago - either through the quickplay finish rules and the ability to claim a draw based on the game not being winnable by normal means (and running down the clock does NOT count as normal means), or nowadays via increments. It would improve the site if long play games had a default 1s increment as it wouldn't affect the timing and would solve this problem. Blitz and bullet are obviously different stories.

But if you want to feel pride about ability to move a mouse faster to run down time in K+R vs K+R......well go ahead.

You misunderstand. 

We aren't talking about lost positions here. We are talking about people winning or drawing due to time running out. 

"I'm so done with this topic. I can actually feel my IQ dropping from talking to you imbeciles."  << best lines so far!

I understand it. If I dont have enough time, you win on time. If I have enough time, I win on time because the 'jig is up time to scram', while you are already playing another game. Pretty clear, whether you play another game or could have been playing another game, it wouldnt be to win by chess cause you have no game and are in denial about it.

Are there other games or sports where people expect their incompetence in taking too long to be rewarded by their opponent just giving up too?  Or is it just some quaint chess thing?

 I'm gonna need you to explain what this post means. 

To reiterate my point. If there is a significant time advantage, it can often be more than enough to nullify a material or positional disadvantage, thus meaning a position in this instance would not be lost. 

Increment was introduced in order to allow players the luxery of never running out of time, as long as they play faster than the increment.

So players have a choice: the can agree to play straight time, or with increment. Either way, it's a player's duty to play in the time constraints of the game, or lose the game.  Material imbalance is irrelevent. 

I've had overwhelming odds against players that steadfastly refuse to resign, hoping to get a stalemate. Occassionally, it's a pretty epic, if futile, quest. But it illustrates that there are avenues other than losing against all odds... so winning on time is always an agreeable way to win,  just not a game you want to use as a showcase for your chess prowess. 🧐

 And do those players ever succeed in getting stalemate? 

Here's a quote from Alekhine that might be relevant:

The fact that a player is very short of time is to my mind, as little to be considered as an excuse as, for instance, the statement of the law-breaker that he was drunk at the time he committed the crime.

... and Alekhine might be considered an expert on the subject of drunkards.