Answers.Body: <p>Though in long time controls, there is a slight courtesy, quick time controls is perfectly okay to win on time.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-22T19:30:51.833Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-09-22T19:30:51.833Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Answers.Body: <p>This is opinion based and therefore not a great fit for the Stack Exchange format, but here are my thoughts anyway.</p>
  
  <p>The lower the time limit, the more acceptable it is from a sportsmanship view. In standard long time controls, this is really poor form. In 1-minute ("bullet"), anything goes, including this. The reasoning is that in these really fast forms of chess, the clock is as much a part of the game as the board is (so 15 vs 50 seconds is actually a type of winning position), whereas in slow chess the clock is more of a necessary concession to tournament organizers, not something equal games should be decided on.</p>
  
  <p>I'm in doubt about 3 minute chess. It's very fast, but I'm not sure on which side of the fence it is, that'll be different from person to person.</p>
  
  <p>Personally I always offer a draw when this position arises, but then I only play for fun, not for big bucks.</p>
  
  <p>K + B vs K + B with bishops on opposite colors is even worse, it's hardly even possible to make a blunder in that. At least with rooks you have to watch out for skewers.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-12-18T18:14:35.250Z
Answers.Text: First game I won against a master. I was down to a king and a few pawns on their starting squares and his flag fell.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joshua
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-07-26T23:27:24.833Z
Answers.Text: With K+B v K+B, opposite colored bishops, you can just keep your king on a square the enemy bishop cannot attack, and then premove bishop moves. This gives you a good chance of drawing on 50-move.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Lucenaposition
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-15T16:59:51.443Z
Answers.Text: As @RemcoGerlich says, conventional courtesy in chess usually asks a player to offer a draw (though never a forfeit) to an opponent who can only lose because of the clock.  I do not know *why* conventional courtesy should ask this, though I assume that there is a good reason for it; but at any rate, this has long been the custom.
Answers.UserDisplayName: thb
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-09-15T14:31:59.073Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-09-15T14:31:59.073Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Body: <p>I was playing a 3-minute game, my opponent had around 15 seconds to my ~50 seconds when he managed to cancel out the last pawns to make it so we each had a king and a rook. I let his time run out and he accused me of poor form. Should that have been a draw?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-09-16T03:45:26.837Z
Comments.Text: You won fair and square. Had you used 30 more seconds, or had he used 30 fewer (with the appropriate change in game quality) it probably would not have been a draw.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Tags: <draw><etiquette><time-control>
Title: Is it poor form to win a drawn position on time?
ThreadText: # Is it poor form to win a drawn position on time?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-09-15)
  
  I was playing a 3-minute game, my opponent had around 15 seconds to my ~50 seconds when he managed to cancel out the last pawns to make it so we each had a king and a rook. I let his time run out and he accused me of poor form. Should that have been a draw?
  
  **Tags:** draw, etiquette, time-control
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: You won fair and square. Had you used 30 more seconds, or had he used 30 fewer (with the appropriate change in game quality) it probably would not have been a draw.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2014-09-15. Score: 19 | Accepted answer
  
  This is opinion based and therefore not a great fit for the Stack Exchange format, but here are my thoughts anyway.
  
  The lower the time limit, the more acceptable it is from a sportsmanship view. In standard long time controls, this is really poor form. In 1-minute ("bullet"), anything goes, including this. The reasoning is that in these really fast forms of chess, the clock is as much a part of the game as the board is (so 15 vs 50 seconds is actually a type of winning position), whereas in slow chess the clock is more of a necessary concession to tournament organizers, not something equal games should be decided on.
  
  I'm in doubt about 3 minute chess. It's very fast, but I'm not sure on which side of the fence it is, that'll be different from person to person.
  
  Personally I always offer a draw when this position arises, but then I only play for fun, not for big bucks.
  
  K + B vs K + B with bishops on opposite colors is even worse, it's hardly even possible to make a blunder in that. At least with rooks you have to watch out for skewers.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: As @username_3 says, conventional courtesy in chess usually asks a player to offer a draw (though never a forfeit) to an opponent who can only lose because of the clock.  I do not know *why* conventional courtesy should ask this, though I assume that there is a good reason for it; but at any rate, this has long been the custom.  
  > **username_4**: First game I won against a master. I was down to a king and a few pawns on their starting squares and his flag fell.  
  > **username_5**: With K+B v K+B, opposite colored bishops, you can just keep your king on a square the enemy bishop cannot attack, and then premove bishop moves. This gives you a good chance of drawing on 50-move.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-09-22. Score: 0
  
  Though in long time controls, there is a slight courtesy, quick time controls is perfectly okay to win on time.
  
  
  ---
  
  