What is your opinion about players who try to win on time when dead lost?

In any timed chess, if you are playing a time game and you lose on time, you lost. That is one of the two methods of winning. How does someone "cheese out" on a non-blitz game?

I am one that hates to resign, even if there's mate in one, so unless I absolutely cannot win, even on time, then I won't resign. If your opponent loses on time, then you win and they lose. It's that simple. I have saved several losing games like this, and I think it's a good strategy! If you don't respect me I don't care. It's a strategy, it's not cheating, and it works.

Losing on time should be a draw if you are totally winning

If someone was 'totally winning' maybe they should have won within the time allowed

I am fluctuating between 1300-1500. Therefor I rarely feel that neither I nor my competition can be considered to be "totally winning" at any time. We suck at chess. Let me repeat: We suck at chess.

I only resign if I feel that there is no way for me to win. If they have 30 seconds on the clock and like +6, +7 or even + 9 and I have the position or material to squeeze out a a win or a draw I will try to make that happen. People at my level play like crap pretty often if they are stressed.

Both players agree to the timer when they click start.

If you're going to whine about losing on time, stop playing speed chess.

Besides, getting flagged in a winning position is all part of the game. It happens to everyone - you're not a special snowflake for it happening to you, too.

If you lose, shrug it off and play again. There's always another game to play.

skill issue just win if you're winning lmao

Time is a resource, just like space or material. If you squander it, you deserve to lose.

There were notably banter blitzes which were did by Laurent Fressinet (he's a GM but he's not a champion like Magnus Carlsen and for example he was ridiculed by Alireza Firouzja). He played also against 2000+, by playing he must read the chat, he must comment, in the end he manages to win almost all the time (and he doesn't have the abilities of a strong bot to succeed).

In short it's like losing winning games because of tactical mistakes, time is an element of the game and it's up to us to develop techniques to gain for winning positions as quickly as possible.

Time is part of the game. If your oppment has low time, go for it. It's part of the game, and if they lose on time in a winning position, it's thier fault that they didn't carry the win.

Hey, it's all part of the game. One has to learn how to "budget" their time regardless of the time control. Mic drop!

"What is your opinion about players who try to win on time when dead lost?"
++ The players who lose on time when winning should play with increment.

If you're totally winning and about to run out on time, maybe you're only winning because you thought about your moves longer than your opponent. So you should not get the win.

That said, I often like playing with increment so this is less of an issue. You should too. Looking at your games, you seem to play exclusively 10|0. Play 5|5 or something and timing out in won positions should be less of an issue.

Watch any GM blitz/bullet game where one player is having time trouble; the opposing player is going to resign 0% of the time.

Resigning is for when you're losing, if your opponent is in time trouble you're not losing.

As an aside, the resign button is also terribly useful when the doorbell rings or something.

Losing with time is just part of chess with a clock. I have noticed that when my opponents lost with time them just should blame themselves when are thinking next move too slowly. So them just should either learn to think faster or take games where is more time.