Answers.Body: <p>In blitz, time is a major factor in the game, and it is fine to try and win on time. </p>
  
  <p>If you used too much time, and your opponent thinks he can flag you, there is nothing wrong with that. It is part of the game. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-05T12:34:18.213Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-11-05T12:34:18.213Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.Body: <p>Time is a resource in blitz chess, as much as or even more so than material. If it isn't unsportsmanlike to capture your opponent's material, how is it unsportsmanlike to capture their time? </p>
  
  <p>In blitz chess, there is often a time-endgame. Otherwise pointless checks and random-looking moves are part of this endgame. From my perspective, this is part of what makes blitz <em>fun</em>. I have lost many blitz games because my opponent found ways to make me burn precious seconds responding to annoying checks at the end of the game, and have never thought of them as bad players for doing so.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-05T20:31:02.703Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-11-05T20:36:19.230Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-11-05T20:36:19.230Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>waste their time</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>If it's clear that they are able to win within the time they have left, this could be considered bad sportsmanship. However, in those situations the number of remaining checks is usually quite low.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>win the game on time</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>If that's a possibility, I'd say it's perfectly fine to play on if you're losing on the board. At the beginning of the game, both players get the same amount of time to <strong>finish the game</strong>, not just to <strong>obtain a winning position</strong>. Time management is an important part of the game, and if you fail at it, you deserve as much to lose as you do with failing to obtain a good (or drawn) position.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-05T12:23:12.783Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-11-05T12:23:12.783Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.Body: <h1>Absolutely!</h1>
  <p>If time wasn't a key to the style of match, it wouldn't be timed.</p>
  <p>Adding a time constraint to an otherwise purely strategic game strongly suggests that the time component will and should be used 'strategically' as well.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-05-22T18:08:08.747Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-05-22T18:08:08.747Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-17T09:59:59.497Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MrWonderful
Answers.Body: <p>While flagging the person is not the best and nicest way to beat the opponent (the opponent will probably rage abit), playing a blitz game, <strong>especially</strong> the 3+0 blitz games, you are indirectly telling your opponent that the you are possibly going to be flagged down on time, especially when one is losing, and time is the only option to win on. Flagging is a part of chess, and it is completely fine. Of course, if you are losing by an entire queen and your opponent has a reasonable amount of time, resigning is the most courteous option. But if you were in a drawn position, where the opponent had less than 10 seconds, it's completely fine to flag him/her.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-04-06T03:41:28.857Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-04-06T03:41:28.857Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: DialFrost
Answers.Body: <p>That only works in blitz time controls with no increment. If you accept games with no increment you are basically agreeing that flagging is part of the game and sportsmanlike. If you personally find it unsporting then always play with an increment and decline challenges with no increment.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-05T12:20:19.597Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-11-05T12:20:19.597Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>In Blitz games, with very little time left for both players, is it acceptable to keep on checking the opponent and waste their time and win the game on time? Is that true sportsmanship?</p>
  
Tags: <check><blitz><time-management><ethics>
Title: Is it sportsmanlike to waste opponents' time by giving check at the end of the game?
ThreadText: # Is it sportsmanlike to waste opponents' time by giving check at the end of the game?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-05)
  
  In Blitz games, with very little time left for both players, is it acceptable to keep on checking the opponent and waste their time and win the game on time? Is that true sportsmanship?
  
  **Tags:** check, blitz, time-management, ethics
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2019-11-05. Score: 89 | Accepted answer
  
  That only works in blitz time controls with no increment. If you accept games with no increment you are basically agreeing that flagging is part of the game and sportsmanlike. If you personally find it unsporting then always play with an increment and decline challenges with no increment.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-11-05. Score: 51
  
  In blitz, time is a major factor in the game, and it is fine to try and win on time.
  
  If you used too much time, and your opponent thinks he can flag you, there is nothing wrong with that. It is part of the game.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2019-11-05. Score: 44
  
  Time is a resource in blitz chess, as much as or even more so than material. If it isn't unsportsmanlike to capture your opponent's material, how is it unsportsmanlike to capture their time?
  
  In blitz chess, there is often a time-endgame. Otherwise pointless checks and random-looking moves are part of this endgame. From my perspective, this is part of what makes blitz *fun*. I have lost many blitz games because my opponent found ways to make me burn precious seconds responding to annoying checks at the end of the game, and have never thought of them as bad players for doing so.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-11-05. Score: 29
  
  > waste their time
  
  If it's clear that they are able to win within the time they have left, this could be considered bad sportsmanship. However, in those situations the number of remaining checks is usually quite low.
  
  > win the game on time
  
  If that's a possibility, I'd say it's perfectly fine to play on if you're losing on the board. At the beginning of the game, both players get the same amount of time to **finish the game**, not just to **obtain a winning position**. Time management is an important part of the game, and if you fail at it, you deserve as much to lose as you do with failing to obtain a good (or drawn) position.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-05-22. Score: 9
  
  # Absolutely!
  
  If time wasn't a key to the style of match, it wouldn't be timed.
  
  Adding a time constraint to an otherwise purely strategic game strongly suggests that the time component will and should be used 'strategically' as well.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2022-04-06. Score: 1
  
  While flagging the person is not the best and nicest way to beat the opponent (the opponent will probably rage abit), playing a blitz game, **especially** the 3+0 blitz games, you are indirectly telling your opponent that the you are possibly going to be flagged down on time, especially when one is losing, and time is the only option to win on. Flagging is a part of chess, and it is completely fine. Of course, if you are losing by an entire queen and your opponent has a reasonable amount of time, resigning is the most courteous option. But if you were in a drawn position, where the opponent had less than 10 seconds, it's completely fine to flag him/her.
  
  
  ---
  
  