My answer to those letting the clock run when they're totally lost: is it too passive aggressive?

I've taken to a funny little response to people who in totally lost positions simply let the clock run out. And I'm wondering if others have done the same thing. I'm also wondering if I'm being just a bit too passive aggressive with it.

First, I almost always play 5 0, so there's rarely any serious amount of time invested in any game. And I'm a 1850-1950 patzer, not a really strong player.

My answer to them is simple: When their clocks get down to 15 seconds, I give them more time! I will add 60 seconds, and then at the next 15-second mark, another 60, and possibly even more if I'm feeling nasty. Those who just don't want to be mated or to resign and are waiting out the clock get stuck waiting longer than anticipated. Occasionally they then leave and I feel I've struck back at their nonsense. Sometimes I get tired of it and simply let the clock run out.

It's an annoyance to do this, but there is some nasty satisfaction in it. And, just in case my opponent is like me and often suffers from pretty poor internet connection, I might possibly be keeping alive a game my opponent isn't ready to concede. (Or so I keep telling myself, although I don't think I've had that happen yet.)

So, do others do this? Am I just being spiteful? (And is it ok, even if I am?) Is this just stupid and I should simply get on with my life?

What do you think?

I understand why you might add time to their clock, but if you don't do it until the last 15 seconds, why not just wait 15 seconds more and get the rating points? Your goal is to punish your opponent, but you've already done that in the best way: on the chessboard.

I think the main point is simply, "See how that feels, obnoxious opponent?" But since it's couched in one of the most helpful actions available, it's something that's very hard for them to ever complain about. I must admit to getting some stupid satisfaction when one of these opponents ends up leaving while this is happening. I wait until the end in order that the opponents might themselves be more frustrated if they've been waiting for the flag to fall so another game could start. If the other player has not been playing games and simply lost connection (happens to me), then this shouldn't even be noticeable.

@CrossEye #1 It's especially satisfying to see the warning message to the opponent which reads as follows: "Warning LoserOpponent, letting time run out instead of resigning will result in temporary ban."

i suppose most of these people just walk away and do something else, so they wont notice if u give them more time.

"1850-1950 patzer" is like saying 6 foot 1 short guy, well below the tallest (aka elite players) but also well above average (aka 1500s) is not short.

What if they just go AFK when their time starts to run out? Then you're just sitting there staring at your beautifully won position all by yourself for X amount of time.

@winstonsmithamm rating is relative. 1500 is much better than 1300. 1300 I much better than 1100. Now, my rating is much lower than yours.

I mean if you're an 1800 in a room full of GMs then yeah, you're the patzer there but without such a context and assuming we're talking about strength relative to the average player then 1850-1950 Lichess (1650-1750 FIDE) is good. Lichess's 800 point rating floor hides the true strength of the really bad players, the average rating would come down if there was no rating floor.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.