computeropponen: I disagree. What do you mean by better? Better for what? Winning? I doubt it, and there's more to playing games than winning, even if the object of a game is to win the game.

While it is true that a player can fashion the timing of his moves to increase the chance of a time out or loss of patience in his opponent, doing so greatly increases the chance of that particular opponent of not playing with him again. If winning the game is that important, then that is the type of game you'll have.

This is not the way I like to play. I want to win every game, but doing things that aren't part of the game seem to me like you are playing some other game. It is similar to those with lofty ratings in games without a chance mechanism refusing to play lower rated players. Are you playing a game, or are you playing the site and deceiving yourself about your own playing skills?

I would much rather play a good game and lose than play poorly and win. At least most of the time. If the game has a chance mechanism, such as Backgammon, then a little luck and making poor moves can be very rewarding for reasons that Chess cannot ever be. In Chess and other games where luck is minimal or non-existent, I want to play my best and win or lose with my opponent doing his best.

Using the clock to beat me works quite well, but you'll not get me to play you many games. If I start a game and the clock is going to be part of the game and strategy, I would hope my opponent and myself discussed this before the game so that he or I won't feel deceived and will use the clock in a way that is more than just part of rules and is part of the game we expected before we started to play it.