#30 "In blitz, I often find myselve in a lost position. Is it ethical to play on because my opponent will lose on time? Maybe it is part of the game to take into account the clock, but I beleive ratings should have a different K-Factor when we win by the clock."
Isn't the whole point of Blitz play to exaggerate the importance of time? Lichess already takes this into account by maintaining separate Blitz and Classical ratings for us.
But, in any event, I believe that time is as valid as anything else in winning/losing Blitz games.
my two cents - i see the argument that in fast games, time pressure and huge blunders are part of the fun. in longer games, however, a bishop is simply not going to win vs a rook and two connected passed pawns or the like. when we see that there is no way for the losing side to win, it begins to make sense that playing such a game out is rude. i don't ask players to resign, but when i see this kind of one-sided position, i do start to think "OK, it is realty time for you to resign now."
#73 totally right - if people don't like being flagged they should hurry up or play longer time controls.
#74 "...when we see that there is no way for the losing side to win, it begins to make sense that playing such a game out is rude."
Generally agree.
When I see that I have no possibility of winning (and I'm assuming I'm playing against a competent player), I resign.
And, I ALWAYS resign, not stage tantrum walk-offs :)
If time has become a factor, I will play for a stalemate, or even a win on time -- even though I'm in a "losing" position.
I will never just walk the King around the board to accomplish nothing.
Now here's the rub:
We all need to be a bit tolerant -- especially with lower-rated players -- as their perception, indeed their ability to perceive, of the relative state of the match and their prospects is still in development. And, ya know, if your battling with lower-rated players on a regular basis, shame on you. You've got no right to be annoyed by their lessor quality of play.