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

Time is not the only reason why people don't resign. We are all humans and occasionally make mistakes, so I usually play on, there is that chance that the opponent may blunder and remove his winning position.

This even happens in daily games, I experienced this 2 times. I blundered and lost material in both games, but the opponent later on hung the rook, removing my losing position.

Evidently, many believe that setting a time control is just a generic indication on the maximum duration of the game.

Yet it is repeated and explained in every possible and imaginable way... When choosing a certain time control, the aim of the game is to give checkmate within that well-determined time. So time management is an essential part of the game as well as moves, tactics etc. There's no point in reaching a totally winning position if you haven't spared the time necessary to checkmate. It's not that hard to understand.

If you don't like it, you have to play with very slow time controls. Complaining is futile.

As alexander kotov said in Think Like a Grandmaster, it is not unsportsmanlike to try to win on time. Trying to win on time is just like trying to exploit a weak pawn/square and the time management is your opponent's problem

One of the only reasons why im still 1300 blitz is because of how much i suck at converting an advantage with time trouble. Sure its extremely annoying when you played an absolute patzer with a monkey playstyle, but in the end its your fault for being unable to convert with time trouble. The best thing you can do is learn how not to make the mistakes you made again

Yeah I know them, I call them chess players.

In my opinion, these players should get banned for unsportsmenship.

I've suffered from such players recently but then again not managing our own time properly is not the opponents fault

It's opponent fault if they play very passively and then win in time, because the one who wants to attack need to spend time to think about how to attack, while the one who passively defence do not need time to think about how to move.

Bro attack is easier than defence coz you have more space where you are attackin

In attack you can make threats by hand but in defence you gotta think about opponent ideas

Time restraints are set in place for a reason. 4000 rated chess engines can play 95%+ CAPS games given merely 1 second/move, but conversely, 100 rated players cannot even be reasonably expected to accurately execute KQ vs K or KRR vs K endgames out to a checkmate even in 90+30.

Accurate longform calculation in a reasonable amount of time is the product of skilled experience, and so if you lose on time (or draw by timeout vs insufficient material) to an opponent, that's not them being unsportsmanlike in the slightest. You were the one who weren't skilled enough and experienced enough to execute a win from a winning position in a timely fashion.

Chess isn't about the theoretical, it's about the practical. Nobody will question your ability to win a KBN vs K endgame theoretically at a certain level, but with mere minutes on the clock, it's up to you to have previously practiced that endgame like the back of your hand until you can execute it perfectly.

Complaining of a loss by timeout in a "theoretically won" position is akin to bemoaning your loss against your club's resident Grob player as you were in a "theoretically won" position from the move 1... d5. You aren't wrong, or rather, you wouldn't be if you were a better player.

In fact, calling an opponent that you lost to "totally outclassed", "a cheeser", and "someone I have zero respect for as a human being" is FAR far worse in my eyes. No, it was you who was totally outclassed, as you couldn't win a piece-up endgame even in time trouble. Play more blitz, bullet, and hyper-bullet if that's the case. You have options. Complaining about an entire category of people online more talented than yourself is... certainly one of them... I suppose.

Indeed while I didn't understand the theory at the top, well, it's not the opponents fault that you messed up a position with an extra king 😆

#151 and #152, it depends on the position. Personally, I find that I tend to be a very strong aggressive attacking player against kingside castles, a strong waiting, counterattacking player against safe central kings, and a rather weak aggressive player in more open, low-tension positions with both sides castled queenside, forcing me to play more passively in those positions.

I'd argue it's far easier to passively defend in the Caro-Kann or QID and far easier to aggressively counter-attack in the French or KID.

Where?
King Queen vs King
King Rook Rook vs King
King Bishop Knight vs King
These are the only three endgame examples I mentioned, where is there an extra king?

I meant that it's absolutely not opponents fault that we message up absolutely winning position

For example right now I played a Blitz game opponent was up 16 points in material with extra queen and 2 rooks for a minor piece I just went all out and checkmated him

https://www.chess.com/game/live/103369896285

Correct.

Accurate defense is one of the HARDEST chess skills to learn.

In the following game, Black was never worse as long as he defended accurately... but could YOU have defended this position?

It's cynical and not sporting. However, sometimes it works, players get wins from lost positions.

Using up more time than allowed isn't sporting either.

Here are one of the game which I lost in time. I play aggressive chess while the opponent play passive chess. I forced the opponent to move out the king and duel. However, the opponent did not resign and I lost in time (It's a 10 min game and I just need 10 more seconds to mate the opponent).

Nearly 90% of my opponents play this type of passive chess so I need to think about how to attack and force the opponent give up playing passive chess or I will mate the opponent.

When I mate these opponents, I will think that justice is done.