Which is less impressive, your opponent blunder or

In my opinion, if your opponent blunders let's say a queen and they resign, that is less impressive than winning on time. It's more impressive if you win on time and I'll explain why:

Let's say 2 countries are at war. You sign up to join and defend your country, however, without warning, your enemy accidently drops a nuke and their entire army is wiped out. Now you sit there on your chair, acting like you are some time of hero, begging for a Medal of Honor or something, when you did absolutely nothing to win but exist. The same thing is true in chess. When your opponent blunders a queen or rook, especially in the beginning of the game, that had nothing to do with your effort. All you did was exist, you did not expect your opponent to blunder, you did not even plan for your opponent to blunder, you just sat there and watched them make a fool out of themselves. Nothing impressive about that.

Winning on time, however, is more impressive because you actually made your opponent think and they did everything they can to attack you but you defended very well. This is like a 12 round boxing match, when your opponent did everything they can to try to knock you out, or at least win rounds, but you did very well avoiding getting hit, blocking, winning points, and winning rounds. Then after 12 rounds, the time is up, and the winner with the most points wins unanimous decision. The same is true in chess, when the time is up, the person with the most time (points) wins because their opponent failed to checkmate (knock out) their opponent.

Of course these are exaggerated examples, but the premise remains the same, although it can also be said that if your opponent blunders because you made quick moves that confused your opponent, then yes, that deserves praise because you actually put in effort. Also, it is fair to say that if your opponent just sits there wasting time not knowing they don't have any time left and you win on time, well that is not impressive because they were oblivious to the rules.

In the end of the day winning is winning. However, winning with checkmate or your opponent resigning due to a foreseeable and inevitable checkmate is the most impressive way to win because you actually put in effort and planned a strategy that your opponent did not expect.

I think they blunder is less impressive

Yeah, we all agree. A blunder is less satisfying.

Winning on time is less impressive because winning on time, lacks the sense of accomplishment that comes from capitalising on an opponent’s mistake over the board. While a time win still counts on the scoreboard, its substance is usually thinner than a strategic- lol imagine reading this ai generated answer get pranked bozo do you like chicken?

The most satisfying is the opponent blunder because they know the messed up and when they instantly resign and I don't even know he blundered is crazy

I prefer a third option: when the opponent makes several positional mistakes that slowly add up, but no especially terrible "blunders" occur. It's so much more fun to win a game knowing that you genuinely played better than your opponent did despite their best efforts, instead of just getting a cheap victory because they weren't paying attention.

me too

Winning on time is less impressive. Imagine opponent playing for a draw, and just park the bus with no intention to win the game. They will not take any risk to make the game inbalance, they will not sac any materials. Thats why you see many 3 fold repetition draw amongst gm. 1 of them is not willing to make move to start attack and the other is waiting for an attack. Now question is do you want to watch gm match end in 3 fold repetition draw? Or you want to see them battle it out? And only draw acceptable is stalemate.

Diggy, I never actually thought of that until now, and totally agree

What about time pressuring someone into blundering? knowing they will make mistakes before you in the next 30 moves you drag out in a complicated position you are more familiar with. Both seem impressive. Usually when someone blunders, its because they are less experienced in the position and still have gaps. When you can easily see bishops move backwards in an instant for example and they can't, that queen blunder demonstrates class. Sure you can lose to a complete beginner, but if they blunder more frequently, they are probably less experienced and overall weaker at chess. Where as anyone can flag by pushing wood around long enough winning on time. If your opponent humiliates you over the board and then are like whoops I timed out, they probably walked away smiling having had a good time and probably still shared the game with their friends anyway because they played impressively. But of course learning to use the Timer piece is an important competitive skill in the sport, just realistically those wins are inflating our ratings and playing strength is weaker. Then when we blunder we are like ah well that warm up doesn't count.