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

How do you describe that game as "aggressive chess"?

You began the game with a system opening (the London, or the Chigorin) which is rather passive to start with.

You followed up with a3 (further attenuating your first-move initiative). Then you started exchanging pieces, including Queens.

White's early game suggested to me that he was playing for a draw, not for a win.

You want to figure out how to attack, how to force the opponent out of his defensive shell?

1) Give up the London. Give up playing system openings. They are just a way of playing the first half-dozen moves without needing to THINK. This is not a good thing... it is a BAD thing. This is chess... you are SUPPOSED to think! Learn and play a REAL opening... something that forces both you and your opponent to think.

2) Don't play moves like 5. a3 unless you have a specific, important reason. It just gives away the opening advantage that White starts the game with.

3) Don't make unmotivated trades of pieces. Every piece that gets traded off REDUCES the importance of your other assets such as space advantage, initiative, better development, attacking chances and so on. None of those things MEAN anything if most of the pieces come off the chess board. Keep the pieces ON the board.

If you can't mate or draw your opponent on time then you deserve to loose the game, no matter how better you thought your position/material/tactics were. There is nothing "sporty" about giving up a game that you think you still have a chance to beat. If you can't beat an opponent that is in a worse state than you- maybe you aren't in such a good state in the first place.

+1 more time.

also today i won a game on time when i was completely lost opponent had queen, knight, bishop and a few pawns against my king + 1 pawn
I was down to 0.1 second but my opponent timeouted

Every chess game starts with the same board, the same number and types of pieces, the same rules, and the same amount of time. The only variable at the beginning is which player moves first ... the convention is white.

Within that structure there are three possibilities -- win, lose, draw.

There aren't any other variations -- such as almost won, was winning, had a better position, was clearly going to lose, was up four pieces, was brilliant, or any other. The "loser" always has stalemate, draw by repetition, etc as a tactic or tool to achieve a draw.

So -- "clearly lost" isn't lost.

Sounds a lot like - - "I don't want to go to the trouble of mating my opponent".

the special kind of players are these who are so hung up on rating, they'd do whatever to get the points, and we are talking about 800-1000 range here, what really is mind boggling is when the position is a dead draw no breakthroughs nothing, just random king moves or something and you offer a draw and they decline nad continue to flag you, doing random moves to avoid repetition

Yeah, I get it. But when you have 30 seconds on your clock and they have 30 minutes .... it is not a dead draw. Until the flag falls. You started with the same time -- you used yours; they didn't.

Of course, I'm talking a competitive game without increments or delays.

The player you are replying to has a rather unorthodox strategy of refusing to castle every game; because the king is stronger in the centre in the endgame. The piece trades are probably to get to the endgame asap so he can use his king to win. a3 is possibly because he doesn't care about weakening his pawn wall because he doesn't intend to castle anyway.

He seems to see any game where a player castles as overly passive, or at least castles 'early' (which perhaps means, not as a way to avoid immenant checkmate)

Although imo you can't call any move as overly passive if it's the top engine move, and often castling is.

If you don't accept that running out of time is a loss, then play games with no clock. Otherwise, the clock is part of the game. Sure, it is disappointing to have a winning position on the board only to lose on the clock, but that's the game you signed up for when you agreed to play.

Just now, while up K, R, R, P against K, R, I ran out of time I needed one more move to mate. Had to get one of my Rs around my K. My opponent had 2 seconds left when the flag fell.

I lost.

Time management is part of the skill. I usually play "rapid" (30 minute limit) because I need time to think about my moves. I rarely play blitz or bullet. Usually 30 minutes is adequate but occasionally I have maintained equality against an opponent by taking time to avoid blunders. Then I look at the clock and have three minutes left and the opponent might still have 15. I have to speed up, start to blunder and lose. But if the opponent could play well without running the clock down, he or she presumably played better than me and may be better at chess. It happens.

Of course this is aggressive chess. I did not cowardly castle king but make flank attack to attack the castled king. The opponent kept the king at corner and thought that with this passive play, I cannot make progress and can win in time easily. However, I kept on attacking and forced the opponent to move his king out of the corner so that real duel chess occur.

If you review my games, you can see that I never castle king and keep on attacking. Trading pieces are good to prevent the opponent to keep on defending or putting me to think at a complex position. It also leads to my winning endgame.

Here are an example which the 2100 rated opponent traded all pieces other than pawns with me. But my king was more active then him so I could easily capture his pawn and lead to a must win endgame. I am not afraid of trading pieces, with my active king I can never lose the endgame when the materials are equal.

Terrible take. It’s part of the game. If they win like that, the opponent needs to be quicker than them.

It's all part of the game, part of the fun.

Imagine being a up and coming chess player that aspires to improve and seeks out the ability to have as much fun and sharpness as he can. Suddenly, he meets people who are totally fine playing 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d5 3.e3 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.c3. Hes in utter shock that anyone would even want to play this, especially as the white pieces? White then goes on to trade queens with the Qb6 6.Qb3 c4 7.Qxb6 manuver and draws with black. Nobody wins points. Nobody losses them. He then decides to ask white about his opening choices, which he responds with ¨"I dont know. Thats just what i usually play. I dont often see people who play Qb6.¨

(based on a true story)