Playing to win on time.

I play 30-minute-per-side matches.  The situation has arisen more than just a few times where I feel like I'm losing the match, but my opponent has used much more of his clock than I have.  In these situations I've modified my strategy to string out the match as long as possible, for example by electing not to trade equal pieces and by clogging up the middle of the board.  This has actually worked a number of times, allowing me to win matches on time while being down on points.  Is this considered to violate the chess code of honor?

It's within the rules, and considering that the time setting is 30 minutes, if your opponents are flagging it really means they aren't managing their time optimally. If your opponent has a good amount of time (say 5 minutes) and you believe your position is hopeless, i.e. you judge that your opponent has practically no chance of slipping up so badly that you don't lose, then it would be polite to just resign and save some time.

However, if the position is even slightly unclear, for example being down a piece in a middlegame, it is fully o.k. to play on, given that there's probably a good chance to come back with some tactic.

Either way, it seems to be accepted in bullet chess to throw in suicidal spite checks (sacrificing pieces and queens) to burn off that last 3 seconds of an opponent's time.

You won`t get a fairplay price for that. But its absolutely legal to win that way.

Your opponents have always the choice to play something like 25+5 or 20+10 instead of 30+0. There they don`t lose more games that way.

This is one of the reasons I don't like playing without increment.

Stalling and running out the clock while losing in order to avoid a checkmate is a clear sign of a sore loser.  I would argue however that if such a clock-related tactics used to win a match are not unsportsmanlike.  Why should a player who has failed to effectively manage his clock be given an extra advantage?  After all, he has had more time to think about his moves.

        It doesn't follow that a player doing everything he can, within the rules, to win is a sore loser.

It's not unsportsmanlike, but it's not really chess. It's why I avoid non-increment games.

As someone who loses on time to these sorts of tactics often, I say fair play.  My poor time management is just as costly as a poor move, and is usuallly the only reason I didn't make a poor move.  I realize that in my opponents shoes I would do the exact same thing.

To those of you who know:  How easy is it to get a 25|5 game, for example?

I play 30|0.  It's the only automatic time control option in the time window that I like to play, but I don't really like not having an increment.  15|10 is a little too fast for me, and 45|45 is usually too slow.

Nothing sweeter than a win on time when you have a totally lost game. What's really great is when you only have a single pawn and still get the win because it's considered promotable no matter how impossible it would be.

I think completely outthinking your opponent strategically or spotting an amazing tactic is much better, but each to their own.

I've never employed such tactics though.

The only time that this tactic annoys me is when I have to make 50 aimless moves in a position known to be a draw.  However, it can sometimes be humorous.

I just completed a 123 move game that my opponent could have won if only he had moved a pawn and restarted the 50 move count.  However, near the end, he was in time trouble, and the thought never occured to him.

there is no chess code of honour, there are only chess rules, and any tactic within the rules is honourable! it is sore losers who complain about lawful tactics used against them are dishonourable!! winning on time is absolutely legitimate and honourable in timed chess

I would say nobody deserves to win just because of his better position. If a player has a better position, it's up to him to prove it. If the opponent manages to complicate the game such way, that the player with advantage gets into a time trouble and eventually loses on time, it is his problem. Nothing unfair, I'd say.

They are off in the wilderness praying .  

you almost sound dissapointed.

i think they saw that a calm rational discussion had already been established and decided to wait for the next one.

I think that FIDE Appendix G gives some insight into  winning by purposely running your opponent out of time:  A player with less than two minutes left on their clock may claim a draw if their opponent is making no effort to win by normal means.

The rule is optional and does not apply to blitz.

Winning on time in completely lost positions is impolite. I don't play  30+0 on the Internet but in blitz games it happens very often. I'd rather lose those 5 rating points than win a game that way (especially against a better player). And of course I get a little angry when I lose on time in much better position (with material and positional advantage).

And there is also a funny fact. In OTB chess these situations happen rarely because winning that way is (almost) equal to being a loser and unfair player. Nobody wants to be known as a loser. In the Internet a big part of players plays that way. They don't care. You can't do anything when they are from another part of the world.

So it's your choice. Everyone decides what kind of a chess player he or she is. 

and sorry for my bad English

Its not cheating to win on time in positions like K+R v K+R ,  its just low class and there are plenty of low class people on the internet .