I'd checkmate, but have no time

It happens often in live chess that you achieve obvious winning position, but have too little time left. Most opponents will just play random moves, because they have more time. My opinion is that opponent should resign in such position, because when there is no way out, he has surely already lost. But on the other hand, he could say that you weren't good enough to achieve the goal in given time - you ran out of oxygen and died right before you could have pressed the trigger :).

What also bothers me, but it's not related, is that often when you put your opponent in clearly losing position, he won't make a move, because he noticed that you have very bad connection and you will surely be disconnected before his time runs out. I am always disconnected when someone does this to me. But I can't do anything about disconnections.

I'm more interested if it is morally right not to resign and win on time, when it is crystal clear that your opponent (although he have used more time than you) will win - especially if he has a forced checkmate in couple of moves or K+Q/R vs K.

Well, its obviously arguable with the time thing because, in my opinion, the clock is part of the game too. Losing is losing. The disconnection thing on the otherhand, is definitely wrong.... I hate when people do that thing to me...

if there was no time then the game would be completely different he wouldnt have made the moves he made and you wouldnt have made the moves you made. youd each have less pressure and make better moves. time no matter how much or little you have adds pressure. just look at the differences in most members online rating and live rating.

Chess is more than just the pieces on the board.  It is also the the agreed upon time controls.  To say that you would have won if it weren't for the time is like saying if it weren't for the odds you would win every gamble.  We can also bring in another aspect of the game into this discussion as well: blunders.  I clearly had a won game and if it weren't for that losing blunder at the end I surely would have won.  So maybe we should no longer count games won on time or opponent blunders as realllll wins.  The game is what it is and you cannot take away one part of it and say if it weren't for that one part of it, I would have won.  As far as the morals of it, if it is within the rules of the game, then it is moral.  Chess is a game.  As such there are no morals that reside outside of the rules that are agreed upon by the opponents. 

There is a rule about this actually. Losing on time basically holds up, because, as has been pointed out, time is part of the game, part of the position. But there's a provision, at least in the USCF rules (which are comparable but not entirely the same as FIDE rules; I haven't checked FIDE recently to know exactly their position, I think arbiters come in more, but this is fairly valid either way), that in a sudden death time control, on a game which is not using a delay or increment clock, then if a player has insufficient losing chances and runs out of time, the game should be declared a draw. The question then becomes what constitutes insufficient losing chances. Here, the rule says something to the effect that, with both players having ample time, a Class C player would be able to at least draw against a master roughly 90% of the time (or more, obviously).

I know what you mean, I think it depends on what the exact time controls and situation is.  If I've reached a position in which anihliation is inevitable, I sometimes flail around with random moves if there are like 10 seconds left or so. If there's like one minute or more to go I resign, randomly shifting pieces around would be embarrasing.  In regards to the morals thing, morals most certainly exist outside of the agreed upon rules. I can't immedeatly think of an appropriate chess example, but take soccer for instance. Sometimes when an opponent is hurt, the other team (with the ball) will deliberatly kick the ball out of bounds. When the injured player recovers, there is no obligation to throw the ball in to the first team, but it would be considered "immoral" not too.

If its a 1-5 minute game, than by all means the main focus of the game is moving quickly. If its a 20 minute game, and someone takes 19:20 to reach a clearly won king and rook vs king endgame, do you really consider moving the king as rapidly as possible to still be competing in the spirit of chess?     

Oh dear, another one of these discussions...

The soccer analogy doesn't hold because nobody's hurt. If me continuing to play a game of chess is actually hurting someone, by all means I should stop, but that's clearly not the case here. I also have no idea why immoral is in quotes; it simply is immoral.

As for your king and rook example, playing it out is an insult to the opponent (I'm in favour of resigning lost positions, clearly), BUT if you can't complete the mate that quickly, then they were totally justified in essentially calling you unskilled, because you have proven yourself to be unskilled. The best way to get back at the opponnent in such situations is to win.

Yes. The clock is just as much a part of the game as the board and pieces are. Winning on time is just as good as winning by checkmate.

Think of it this way: if your opponent had not moved so quickly, perhaps he would have made better moves and would not be in a losing position. Also, a position in which you are about to lose on time is not a "winning" position for you - it is a winning position for your opponent!

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's morally right to not resign, as you can always resign whenever you want, even when you're totally winning on any count you're morally fine to resign if that's what you want to do. But it is certainly morally permissible to not resign in these kinds of situations, pretty much without question.

Honour goes beyond the ascribed rules. It is foolish to assume the rules of any game are inherently correct, and as resignation is a choice within the rules, you have your opportunity to vote with your feet, as it were. I remember reading the annotations of someone whose entire strategem was based around his opponents tendency for time trouble and, I have to say, i was disgusted( where is the beauty and creativity in that?), but, to be fair, it was a good winning strategy. p.s. look up the old cricket tradition of 'walking', it is still done from time to time.

I dont feel like going through all your stuff, but you clearly made no effort to understand the soccer analogy at all. The injury was not the important part, the important part was that the opposing team does a slight courtesy (kicking the ball out of bounds) Its the other team NOT RETURNING THE BALL that is the immoral part.  See?, someone being hurt has nothing to do with it at all (It is merely the initial causation of the 'moral descision'. And immoral was in quotes becuase I thought it was too strong a word for a sportsmanship convention, but thanks for your linguistic teachings.  As for the chess related stuff, somethings are just too difficult to articulate, they are more easily recognized than defined.

If you took the attitude of trying to understand my point rather than the tried and true internet "I must prove you wrong" mentality you might have seen that.

I absolutely understood the soccer analogy, being a tremendous sports fan. I'll spell out my explanation even more clearly for you, as you seemingly didn't understand it. Here's what happens, and why; 1) a player gets injured 2) the other team kicks the ball out of bounds, stopping play. This is required because the other player is injured and needs medical attention 3) The player gets the attention he/she needs 4) (this is the point) The team, upon throwing the ball in, kicks it straight back out, in order to return posession to the team which had it at the time of injury. This is necessary as reciprocation, upholding the underlying principle of Reciprocity. From the Deontological perspective, this makes perfect sense, as the Categorical Imperative essentially is reciprocity codified. From a Utilitarian perspective, it makes sense as well, as returning the ball encourages the first team to kick it out of bounds in the first place.

However, in chess, there's no injury, so there's nothing to reciprocate! That's why the analogy isn't an apt one.

So I actually did take the time to understand your argument, and I wasn't taking an "I must prove you wrong" for the sake of proving you wrong tact so much as I was going with a "You've made a false analogy, very understandably, but I feel like I should explain why it doesn't apply" tact. Maybe if you weren't going with the tried-and-"true" internet "He disagrees with me so he clearly can't have understood my argument" slant you would have gotten that.

I also find it interesting that you criticise me for not taking the time to understand your point, but you begin your post by admitting "I dont feel like going through all your stuff" ... I do appreciate the irony

Okay, I appreciate your viewpoint here (though maybe overworded) Your view makes perfect sense and I understand why you think my analogy fails. You view the "throw in exchange" as a utilitarian means where each team is looking out for their own self interest in the event of thier own future injuries. I never viewed the action that way, but more of a genuine show of good sportsmanhip independent of desire for future considerations, but I do not know the history of the convention and perhaps you are right about the motivations.

Maybe if you weren't going with the tried-and-"true" internet "He disagrees with me so he clearly can't have understood my argument" slant you would have gotten that.

Possibly, but this type of 'I just turned what you said against you' is all to come in internet arguing.

I also find it interesting that you criticise me for not taking the time to understand your point, but you begin your post by admitting "I dont feel like going through all your stuff" ... I do appreciate the irony

 Hahaha, Fair enough, what I really meant was I pretty much ignored everything after the soccer analogy.

I think my main point is simply I cannot articulate why I think its cheap to win on time in certain situations. Its just something I instinctively feel but can't explain.  I appreciate your viewpoint on the soccer thing and admit I was a little hasty in responding

Here's the problem. What's say you have two minutes on the clock and you're not winning, your opponent has 10 minutes and he starts moving fast, instantly, trying to run you out of time. He makes mistakes and you're winning...but... you time out.

Playing your opponents clock is a legitimate strategy and is it fair for an arbiter to come up and say "alright this is a draw"?

I agree, which is why I think that the rule I quoted above is reasonable... how much of an advantage does a Class C need to have to not lose to a master? Quite a lot, I would think

I'm generally the slower of two players in a Live game so between my opponent and I, I'm not generally the one making the call whether to play for the win on time or to resign out of respect for being outplayed.  When I do find myself in the opposite position, however, I really base the decision on how much relative time each of us has left and how I need to play to get the win.  If I'm just blindly pushing wood in a lost position because it's close and I'm just a little ahead on time I'll resign.  If I've got a sizable time advantage I'll generally play on for the win -- be it on time itself, or because my opponent blunders from time pressure.

Time management is as important an aspect of the game as any other and getting a decisive advantage on the clocks should absolutely be something you can and should leverage.  If it's not decisive, though, and I'm in an otherwise lost position, I'll give my opponent the credit for outplaying me and resign.

I personally believe the time factor is a big part of the game. Flagging is just part of things. But I think it's a personal preference. Now if it was a clear draw and someone just carefully avoided the 50 move rule with like a minute on the clock, then I would think that is in bad taste (Alireza v. Chessbrah for example)