Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

Fair means the rules are applied the same way to all involved.  Therefore, if one person runs out of time, it is "fair" to accept the win.  You dont need to feel guilty about winning on time.

Put yourself in your opponent's shoes.  How would you feel if you were Black and he was White and he still managed to win although you have more material?  I get fed up already in plenty of games when my opponents refuse to resign when I am clearly winning but run out of time.

Winning on time in situations like this is to me poor sportsmanship, and doesn't reflect how the winner actually plays.  If anything, I think it's insulting and rude.

This doesn't apply though when both sides have comparable amounts of material.  But in games like the one mentioned above, it most certainly does apply as bad manners.

You are not "clearly winning" if you are unable to deliver a checkmate.

You can think that winning on time when behind in material is "insulting and rude" but it's just your opinion and vast majority of chess players of all levels think otherwise.

The clock is part of the game.

If you cant win a won position, that is not your opponents fault.

You have won within the rules of the game. You are permitted to feel guilty if you wish.

But, as I learnt in team tournaments - A win is a win is a win. Ugly wins still count.

However, etiquette and good manners would suggest that you offer your opponent a rematch.

like you did in this game?

https://www.chess.com/live/game/1706614866

Use your time wisely if you don't want to lose that way.

Stuzzi has the right idea in one aspect: he plays with an increment. If you don't want to lose on time in a dead won position, use an increment and prove that it's an easy win.

At the OP's rating, he should absolutely play on. There is a not unrealistic chance that his opponent will not be able to deliver checkmate efficiently.

Uri,

You are absolutely entitled to have your opinion, but can you tell us how and when exactly you became the spokesman of the vast majority ?? 

Common sense...if you are playing any kind of a fast time control.  Yes, you have more material because you spent more time on your moves.  I have less material because I blitzed my moves and made mistakes.  BUT the clock is a much a part of these games as are the pieces!  If you lose on time it is the same as if you got checkmated.  You neglected one of key factors in your game and that is time management.

Did you read other answers in this thread? Only 2-3 participants think like JoeTheV or have doubts, everybody else think winning on time is fine.

Did you try to Google same question? I did - same result. Here are some links:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1ugj3m/is_it_bad_etiquette_to_during_a_blitz_game_if/

http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/13391/when-losing-in-blitz-is-it-rude-to-play-to-win-on-time

http://chess.about.com/od/improveyourchess/a/The-Clock-As-A-Weapon-In-Blitz-Chess.htm

I've been watching GM Blitz Battle Championship here at chess.com recently. Don't remember any game resigned in such circumstances.

Enough evidence for you?

Thanks to SpacePepper for bringing up the question of what makes chess etiquette in blitz games.  There are all sorts of ideas about etiquette different people have about these games--I think we all want sportsmanship, but how do we agree on what's sporting?  Is it just whatever comes down to people doing what they do? 

Time stamping tries to equal out the lag between computers, but it isn't perfect.  Certainly, lag can turn a 1 min game into a 2 minute game.  OTB blitz is no better--I've seen GMs and IMs pound out instant responses and punching the clock with pieces knocked over or moving before the opponent has punched the clock. Uniform etiquette doesn't seem possible.

Practicing blitz is good training for tournaments, but maybe we shouldn't put too many expectations to results.

These are arguments, not evidence.

Note that I did not say anywhere that you are wrong, you are entitled to an opinion, so am I.

Just do not act as if you represent " a majority".

Even if the majority thinks like you it is not evidence, and they gave you no mandate to speak on their behalve.

Long time ago "the majority" made fire knocking stones together, and now "the majority" thinks another way might be better ...

Would you consider it unethical to win by checkmate when way down in material?

Winning on time (or drawing) when way down on material is central to blitz and bullet without an increment. It's my own fault that I failed to win this game. Instead of the queen check, I should have cut off the king's escape by moving the rook to the e-file. Even with three seconds left, I should have known that.

What exactly in my posts does look like I represent " a majority"?

I counted voices here and at some other internet forums - that's an evidence that majority has certain opinion. If you have other evidence - please bring it here.

Grischuk in the first round (i think...atleast, im pretty sure it wasnt against carlsen) of the BBC resigned even though his opponent was very low on time...like less a second or two if i remember correctly.

His 1st match was against Aronian and I've found one game that matches your description:

https://www.chess.com/live/game/1529536599?username=Grischuk

Aronian had 1.9 sec left but... it's mate in one 52.RG8#