Resigning in blitz when you're ahead on time

@Assios - That's a pretty narrow view you have there. There have been plenty of games where I've mated an opponent in the dying milliseconds of the game. I can't imagine how boring chess would be if you played solely to create a tough defense to breakdown so that your opponent loses on time, or if your only goal is to move your pieces around so fast you win. What strategy do you use when losing on time?

@mandeep: Heh, Assios was being facetious.

He reversed the claim others are making to show how silly it sounded.

"It's silly to try to win on time when you're losing on position."

"It's stupid to try to mate your opponent when you're clearly losing on time."

Those both share the same problem with their logic, but the second one is more obviously ridiculous, so he said that to try to show how silly the other claim is.

At least, that's how I read it. If that's not how he meant it, I'm sure he'll correct me.

Cheers! :)

so why dont you just give them more time????

@OneOfTheQ: That's exactly what I meant. I thought that was obvious even to mandeep, but I guess I was wrong. Thanks for clearing it up :)

@assios: you're being an a**hole.

@vomere: mandeep is saying that it's incredibly dumb to play for a win on time when you have a lost position. I'm just pointing out how wrong that is.

@Assios: Yes, via insult.

Advantages of not resigning when having a lost position:

1: Your opponent might blunder and you seize the victory.
2: You might have a chance of checkmating the king in some positions.
3: Winning by time, This would only be bad sportmanship if you aren't playing for a better positon
4: Having a chance to draw, 3 fold repitition comes to mind.

@EG-Gamer55: You really think it's bad sportmanship to play for a win on time? Think of time as a resource, just like the pieces on the board. If I can make my opponent think for 5 seconds in the beginning of a 1-minute game, then that's perhaps worth a pawn. If I can confuse him and make him think for 5 seconds when both have 15 seconds left, then that's perhaps worth a knight. It's just as legit to win on time as winning on the board.

I'm not at all a fast player, and abstain from bullet completely, though I've taken a liking to 5+0 and 5+5 blitz. I generally stick to rapid and classical.

Even so, I think that winning on time in blitz is completely fair. It just is an element of that time control. If you want to win by position, play rapid or classical. If you want to score as many checkmates as you possibly can in an hour, play blitz. I get ticked if somebody's trying to win on time in rapid or classical, but I absolutely don't fault anyone for beating me on time in blitz.