Should I feel bad claiming wins due to blunders?

I have been pondering how good I should feel when I win because my opponent made a big mistake--a mistake that might be out of character for them.  

I know when I make a huge blunder, I don't feel I allowed myself to give the game a fair shot--but at my level I make my fair share of them.  Personally, I feel the wins against me are well deserved, because the blunders are a part of the character of how I play.

Sometimes I am fortunate enough to win a game against a stronger opponent.  It is 99% because they slipped up on a simple tactic, dropped a piece, over looked something serious and often obvious.  Almost never is it because I out witted them and squeezed out a well deserved win.

How should I feel when I earn many "cheap-o" wins.  Do they count?  Do I pat myself on the back for my chess excellence?  How do you feel when you win against stronger competition, not because your brilliant, but because you capitalized on a bad mistake?

no. take advantage and kick their asses. ignore people who say "you got soo lucky" and stuff like that.

better than i feel when i play an excellent game against someone lower rated.  i have had many games where my opponent blundered and i still wasn't able to win.  my most recent game in fact....grumble grumble. 

I feel awesome... the game is finally over and I kicked ass.  In my head I do a little celebration dance, woohoo!

At the same time though I'm realistic about why I won and I'm conscious of who played the better game.  I don't think my chess was excellent, I just it was good enough to capitalize on their screw up and not let them back in the game.

You win some, you lose some. You both learn something form any game...how you 'feel' afterwards is of no consequence it seems to me.

I still feel good about games won through blunders, but the win is definitely a bit hollow. There's no reason to feel bad though. The game isn't won the second the other player blunders, you still have to capitolize on it, so it's not just a case of "You didn't win, he lost." You still earned the win.

swolf81 is quite correct.

No mistake is never out of character masters make simple mistakes on rare occasions.

You could argue that every game is won by a mistake genrally in a good game a compounding of minor errors sometimes difficult to trace.

One of the phrases that amuses me every time I hear it is: 'he only won because of my mistake'.

I think that winning in chess is always based on your opponent's mistakes. There's no wise to put limits how big mistakes you should use for your advantage. I sometimes feel bad if brilliant even game between me and my opponent ends because his terrible blunder, but it's chess. Blunders are part of chess and if you want to win, you must take advantage of your opponent's blunders, although it sometimes feels bad. On the other hand, you can always offer a draw...
But I don't think it's bad to be sorry for a good opponent who made great blunder. I'm often myself.

This is correct. Some people feel that with perfect play, chess is a draw. This means that in order for either player to win, the other one has to make a mistake. At our sub-GM level, looking at GM games we may not always be able to tell where a slight positional mishap takes place, but GMs will be able to pinpoint them instantly or in post-game analysis at the latest. At our level, the only difference is that some of the more blatant mistakes are also obvious to us.

Chess is about controlling your nerves and avoiding mistakes. If you fail at that, you may make a slight positional mistake or an outright piece-dropping blunder. There's no use trying to find a limit to the size of an opponent's mistake beyond which you should get no credit for your victory. You played into a position where your opponent found it too difficult to make the correct move, and hence you should get all the credit.

          i think,each blunder whether made by yourself or the opponent ,has got a funny side & there is nothing bad to enjoy it,ofcourse  with full respect to the capabilities of the opponent !I often laugh at & enjoy at my own mistakes while analysing the games !

I don't feel so good when the opponent makes a gross blunder. Why? Because this game would never qualify as "the best chess game I ever played." I enjoy hard-fought wins, where it is not easy to spot the losing move on my opponent's part. There is so much more to learn from such wins.

When playing an IM or GM what chances do we have to win without a blunder from them ?!  

i recently reviewed one of my games from a year ago and saw the endgame.  i was rooting for myself, naturally, and saw several dumb moves that prevented my pawn promoting, a few missed mates, and finally a loss or draw...it was quite funny. 

Any game of chess where you win is a game in which your opponent has not played accurately, and has made at least one blunder. This is true even for top level grandmasters. The degree of the mistake needed in order for it to result in a win varies however with the level of play. For beginners you would probably need to blunder away a rook or queen for it to be decisive. For intermediate players perhaps a minor piece. For stronger players a pawn. For GMs the loss of some important square is enough for a win a lot of times.

Mistakes, and time make part of the game and should be looked as well.
in fact, a win is a win - no mather how you did get it. In the Past i did win opposants with more than 500 ELO more then i have, not becouse i am better, but they underestimeted me or had a day off. Well i did enjoyed every time again.

?? is there for a reason.

This will never change - it's chess.

If you are allert enough to see them blunder, destroy them

No room for the weak. 

I think it's less satisfying to win in this way, but I'll take the points, especially in a tournament