Losing on time in Blitz

to queenkarub...yes it's a game of strategy and thought...but it's how fast can you think and act with your strategy...you need to see the moves a lot faster...

It's not always fair but those are the rules.

If you can't deal with the rules, don't play blitz.

I won't

Trying to win on time when way behind in points is just sad. And those who argue it is within accordance of the rules lack a basic understanding of sports in general. 

Sports in general are played with the goal of winning... Winning is all that matters and as long as it is by the rules then a win is a win.  History books don't put special notes by wins to denoted that a win was only by exploiting the rules.  If you don't want to have the clock then don't play it timed. 

Sports in general are played with the goal of winning. I agree with that. But winning is all that matters is just missing the essence of sports entirely. And nobody says they want to have the clock. Think, bro.

Winning is the best part of playing a sport.  When you lose, you just shake it off and move on to the next one.  If you are playing within the rules, and win, what is the problem?

Winning is not the best part of playing a sport. Playing in a sport is in itself the best part. Why bother otherwise? Some value winning more than others, but we all do it for the joy of the game itself. It is possible to ruining the spirit game while playing within the rules. Like moving erratically while a dozen behinds in points is just not playing chess any longer. That is what is being debated. You may disagree, but it would be nice to learn what reasons you have. In my view you should play chess. With the clock running this may include unexpected moves and so on. Once clearly lost it shows true sportsmanship to resign. 

play 10 minute blitz

Winning is not the best part of a sport.  A sport is meant to establish camaraderie while exhibiting skill and establishing good sportsmanship (fair play, adhering to the rules of the game, accepting defeat, learning from your mistakes, practicing to improve, achieving goals, learning tactics, developing strategy, dealing with adversity, and respect for your opponent).  That being said, winning within the confines of the rules is not poor sportsmanship, but rather effectively executing on a strategy.  If those who govern the rule-making establish a system whereby you can win by executing a speed playing strategy that in a longer game would result in failure, it is not different that putting a sprinter into a marathon.  Where he would excel in one form of competition, he may not excel in another.  (this works both ways)

If you play speed chess to avoid having to wait for those slow pedantic players that just eat up a 30 minute clock, then you need to accept that the rules allow for someone to beat you on time.  If you wish to purely play where time is of no factor, then you should be playing longer games or non-timed games.  (all of which are options on here)

I agree largely with lunatixcoder. Still, winning at all costs within the rules is not the end of the discussion. In a clearly lost position moving erratically to win on time in the end has little to do with fairness and sportsmanship (repeating myself). Just to say that it is still within the rules is not really refuting the argument. Debates on rules and sportsmanship may lead to adjusted rules. That has happened in many sports. 

I have won many a game where I was in a "clearly lost" position and by moving to stay out of checkmate eventually my opponent erred and I was able to turn the tables into a position of strength and then succeeded.  And there have been many a time where I was on the "ooops I shouldnt have done that" side of the board where my opponent was able to overcome a "clearly lost" position.  Even the masters look for weaknesses or mistakes from their opponents and are ready to pounce on them bringing in the next victory.  The only clearly lost position is when its mate in one irrefutably, or a draw due to insufficient material.  The rest of the time, we MUST play on to learn from that one unique new experience.

As a comparison, Ive played many a game where I took an opponents pawn en passant.  To which I get the response from the person "WTF... Thats cheating."  There have been huge numbers of conversations about whether that should be legal.  The rules have not changed, and they are likely not to.  The rules are the rules, and yes, everyone has a right to debate the soundness of the rules with the rule making bodies.  But until such time as the rules change, we play within the prescribed rules.  Its a wonderful game with near endless possibilities, thats why chess is a great game of skill and teaches us a lot about strategy.

@lunatixcode. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. En passant is a rule some players tend to forget. That is not really a good reason to consider it cheating. And playing according to the rules cannot be cheating, by definition. We are discussing sportsmanship and the spirit of the game. I see your point how the clock is part of the game, and I agree. I disagree that continuing a game and hoping for a blunder of your opponent is part of the game. As in as chess is supposed to be, not how it is played, because that is just factual.

I think this article sums up how I feel exactly....

https://www.chess.com/article/view/when-should-one-resign

Im not saying people should not resign, but when there is a chance that your opponent could make a mistake and you can convert that into a stronger position, that is perfectly fair.

The article I posted a link to explains (from a masters point of view) what "dead lost" means and when you should resign your position.

So even if you’re up on points, you will lose by default if your clock runs out?

Utter bullshit..there is some problem with the timing system