Letting time run out vs resigning

Also this discussion been going for 11 years

its just delicious seeing all these losers complain, share their torment. HAHA makes letting time run out all worth while.

resigning = 100% lose, takes 1 second

letting time run out = 100% lose, takes many minutes

Which one is better?

letting time run out and playing another game while the cheater copes and seethes.

If you're gonna use all your time anyways why not use it to double check your moves lol

When I'm definitely losing I thing think think and hope the enemy does something stupid .. which they DO half of the time.. I never just let the clock rrun out, if it's my turn I make amove. Always.

Hi everyone, remember it is only a game. Test cricket is more complicated, lasts much longer and has money involved.

This is very annoying, it happened to me today. I was low on time and in a losing position, but my opponent blundered and I had a mate in 5. Then the opponent just stopped making moves and typed "I hope you have time" because he had 8 mins of clock. I resigned because I didn't have so much time to waste. I hope there are mechanisms to detect this and completely ban such losers.

A win is a win no matter how ugly it is.

Surely Chess.com could just have a popup after 2min in a lost position that asks the looser if they would like to continue and then forfeit if they fail to reply. Running down the clock risks the winners game due to loss of connection and that is not fair.

I just sit the time out and then block the opponent.

One reason is the due to the way the site implements insufficient mating material vs flagging rules. Black here could deliberately let his time run out in this position instead of moving the pawn, and get a draw because the site deems a king and bishop insufficient mating material regardless of what pieces black has:

Hi guys lets upvote Reply #150 and get some wait behind a solution and then forward it to chess.com and let them decide on a more active intervention.