Resign or Time?

I was playing a 10 min live chess match last night and I was in bad shape. The only difference was I had more time than my opponent and he was struggling to beat the clock. My friend told me that chess is a sport of "time, space, and material" and he says it takes all three to win. After the match my opponent said in the chat box "you had to resign, I was winning" to which I replied, "I'll take a win any way I can get it" He then cursed me using clever abbreviations like fu and sob and I taunted him by calling him a slowpoke and offered a rematch. At this he replied he would never face me again. Did I do something wrong? Isn't winning winning? or did I disrespect some long standing tradition of courtesy by pushing for a win on time? Is there any shame in that? What would you do?

here's the game if you're interested, although I'll admit it's a pretty sloppy one.

@OP: The clock adds a competitive component to the game. Chess is about competition! If you believe you can win, even if it's on time, then you have every right to pursue it.

Your opponent has his own obligation to manage his time wisely.

Your opponent was incorrect that you "had" to resign. Attempting to pressure someone into resigning is unsportsmanlike.

However, one may use underhanded techniques to try to force wins on time, and of course these should not be used.

You were wrong to taunt your opponent. We all need to work together to keep this game and great website civil. However, you were definitely not wrong to pursue the victory in the manner you described.

I should add that of the three elements of Chess that you mentioned, "time" refers to the time element on the board itself, not the time on the clocks. In that context, "time" refers to tempi.

hahaha... Bad looser! 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.  -Alekhine

Nice analogy Rumple, @whirlwind2011, I've used a technique to try to force a draw against a better opponent before, but I only tried to win on time when I realized he had under 60 sec left. All I did was move really fast in response and I even blundered the knight on the last move to confuse him and it worked.

When playing with the clock use it . He needs to play the end game where it should be on auto less then 60 sec to  Q a pawn and mate with  k and q should be his plan poor time management on his part .

I say good job!!! You played the game the way you should to win. He shouldn't be playing 10 min games if he can't think fast.

True! 

Resigning is a sign of respect.  For most players, that means it is optional.  Especially online.

You are entitled to use all of your time.  Although I would resign that position against another expert (should be EASY to convert with 60 seconds), it's certainly not required.  It is a personal choice.  If you make a habit of playing out dead lost positions for time, don't expect a lot of rematches though.  (unless of course you play very fast time controls like 3 0 or 1 0 where your opponent will want to take as many points from you as possible!)

btw, 37.g5! is a good move if White is short on time.  It eliminates Black's last pawn so any flag fall is a draw and not a loss.  Your opponent can only blame himself for missing this.

I can see what your saying GreenCastleBlock, but this was only two novice players. Mabye it is a sign of respect to resign if losing, but the clock wouldn't be there if it wasn't part of the game, and I think it's more exciting to watch your opponent struggle with the clock. Sometimes they will blunder and tip the scales of the game. It's only exciting if your losing because it feels like trying to catch a hail mary pass in the super bowl. When I reach a higher level of play I will be more "respectful", until then I'll continue to be stubburn when the clock is ticking.

  '

lol

Think of it this way: there are a lot of players who work hard to overcome their problem with time management, and if they work hard enough they do overcome it. If you had let your opponent win by resigning even though he did not manage his time correctly, you would be sullying the work many players put in to fix that aspect of their game.

Good words of advice. I probably shouldn't have responded to him at all, live chess is a battle, I get beat as many times as I win and I've lost on time a couple of occassions. I'll try not to "pee in the pool" only kids do that - and I suspect some older people do too.

lol

Nothing wrong with winning on time. If he didn't want to lose on time he should've played faster. And if he abuses you, take a screenshot and report him.

Do you think if the case was inversed, he would let the win go? Nope. So tell him to go f*** himself.

I had a similar experience where, instead of being defeated, I drew the game by perpetual check. This guy was mad!

I say, the rules are what the rules are. If you don't like them, find a different game.

If you enjoy house rules (resign when being defeated, don't do perpetual checks, etc) then find a group of people who share the same outlook on these house rules and leave the rest of us alone.

word

I didn't even see that one! very interesting stadegy DENVERHIGH