Chess ettiquett is it proper to win on time by playing out a drawn position

This is ridiculous question since the answer is obvious.

Time management is part of the game.  If you are way up on time, and your opponent is about to get flagged, then your opponent should have the DECENCY to resign.  A time advantage is as much a part of the game as a positional advantage or a material advantage or a psychological advantage.  An advantage is an advantage is an advantage.  And all advantages are earned.  If you or your opponent does not respect the signficance of a time advantage, then you shouldn't be playing with time controls. 

There's a certain beauty in winning a blitz game on time, just as a there's a beauty in forcing a perpetual check in an otherwise lost position.  It's all part of the game. 

 I respect your opinions! Ultimately, it was your call, and if you saw the way for him to win, perhaps resigning was indeed the correct decision.

Their is just as much honour in your resignation as there would have been had he offered you a draw. Although the 5-second increment makes a big difference in a decisive end-game, he used his time inefficiently - if anything, he should be begging for your mercy.

"Blaming time trouble for a blunder is like blaming a car crash on being drunk."

In my opinion, in blitz, time is part of the game and playing on time only is normal. Even so, most people won't continue K+R v K+R, but if one player has only a few seconds left and the other a lot more: you should have managed your time better.

However, with standard time controls, I feel it's not part of the game in that way -- it's a way to make sure that the game doesn't last forever, but you don't set out from the start to try to win on time. Winning on time is an anticlimax in standard while it isn't in blitz.

So in standard I consider it against etiquette to play on hoping for a time win in a position that you would never win on the board.

I had a similar situation OTB in a game in 60 minutes. The position was drawn and I had like 2 minutes remaining to my opponent's 15 minutes. He accepted the draw and I considered it sportsmanlike, but after the game his coach publicly berated him for not attempting to run out my clock with non-repetitive moves. The coach's advice was legal, but not sportsmanlike. I would have accepted the draw if the positions were reversed. 

@1pawnsdown..I think the coach wanted his student to be win at all cost.
as a young boy I was at a judo tournament and my coach told me to use dirty tricks to win. what the referee doesn't see....
it wasn't sportsmanship but at the end of the day you only remember who wins.
I doubt many grandmasters became grandmaster by being a good sports.
dirty tricks are being used in chess as well: some coaches tell the students to break the concentration of the other player by using methods only known under interrogation, they silently dab a piece on the table, you cannot hear it. but the brain registers this knocking as extremely annoying. - Josh Waitzkin writes about this in his book.
it is the same theme from the karate kid movies: there ain't bad humans only bad coaches. since my coach in judo told me to - I assumed it was ok to do it.

For OTB play in the US you are wrong.

Rule 14 H1.

I don't think there is nothing wrong with either side.

 Agreed, on both counts.

The big problem with this is that people have funny definition of "drawn."

A king in the corner vs. a rook pawn is drawn and you shouldn't really try to drive them out.

Q+2p v. Q+2p? That's "drawn" in the sense that a draw is the most likely result between two strong players, but if there's even the slightest aspect of my position that I like better, I'm playing to the bitter end.

Judging by how quickly they throw out draw offers, many chess players want to avoid playing endings that are probably but not certainly drawn and will involve some amount of work.

The other issue I have is that if I have a significant time advantage, then my opponent bought his drawn position with the extra time he has used. I budgeted my time with the anticipation that we may play to the time limit, he did not. If I used the extra XX minutes that he did, maybe I would have found something better than a drawn position. If he had used less time, he may not have been able to reach this "drawn" position.

If there's any life in the position at all, play for it, don't let people pressure you into a draw agreement. If it's that easy to draw, let them draw it on increment :)

 I have two ways of looking at this.  First, as a rules lawyer.  Rules are rules and no one is under any obligation to cut anyone any slack, so time limits are time limits, and that's that.  If you lose because you run out of time, even in a four hour game, you lose.  Period. 

And yet....I look at the game.  It is clearly over.  The position is won and/or drawn.  He used his XX minutes, and he achieved a drawn position, or he achieved a won position. That's what the board says, and he did it within the time required.  Time limits exist for the simple reason, and that is that without them, tournaments would take too darned long.  If you agree on a G/60 time control, to me, it seemsthat the spirit of the game, but not necessarily the letter of the rules, is that if you use up your 60 minutes, someone should look at the board and figure out the obvious final outcome of that game, so that we can move on to the next game.  Of course, we would like to play it out, but there's no time, so we have to judge it at that time.  If it is clearly a draw, then call it a draw.  If it's clearly a win, then call it a win for whoever is winning on the board.   If it isn't clear, then give the benefit of the doubt to the one who didn't run out of time.

And so, I commend those people who, winning on time, agree to a draw or a resignation if that is what the board shows. 

As a TD, I can't do that.  I have to follow the letter of the rules based on the time controls and, if applicable, the "insufficient losing chances" rule, but my heart is with the player who plays within the time controls and achieves a won or drawn position, even if, by the rules, I have to give a win to the other player.

Meanwhile, delay clocks are a good compromise.  If a position is really and truly and obviously drawn, then you can draw it taking no more than five seconds per move.

I notice one problem with this viewpoint. The object of the game is to achieve checkmate. This is cut-and-dried, plain and simple. Checkmate. So, to play the devil's advocate, someone could always argue that the win (or draw) was not achieved, despite the supposed "clear and/or obvious" state of the position. Many chess players have a saying: "You have to win the won game." By extension, "you have to draw the drawn game." That means that a won position can still be lost! It's not over until the game ends.

Talk of the proper outcome of the game is irrelevant, even if best play by both sides would maintain a draw, for example. Best play cannot be assumed, because players make mistakes. From a practical standpoint, you are mostly correct. The moves played to that point give every indication that a draw would result. However, such a view assumes too much.

FIDE rules have rule 12.1: "The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute." Possible sanctions are listed under 13.4 - from a warning to expulsion from the event. Good luck following that to the letter :-)

Arbiters I know have definitely interpreted that in a way that allows them to warn players who play only for time in dead drawn positions, or let their time run out when they will be mated on the next move, etc. And that's exactly what the rule is meant for, to let arbiters take appropriate action against stupidity.

The worst is when you have a minute left and the other guy has 2 minutes left in a clearly drawn position with opposite colored bishops.  You're going to make 50 or more moves for the guy to win his points. It's utterly stupid and the game does need a rule that if you make 30 moves without any capture it's a draw. 

     If the position is so hopelessly drawn that you can't make any progress then the polite thing to do is to offer or accept the draw. If the position is theoretically drawn but your opponent will have to play correctly to hold the draw you are entitled to play on and make him prove that he can play accurately under time pressure.

     In speed chess, where moving quickly is part of the game and you're only talking about one minute of the players' time, play it out.