Capturing All Pieces vs Getting a Checkmate

In my opinion, There needs to be a courtesy rule of sportsmanship where if you have the capabilities to get a checkmate but instead choose to capture all of your opponents pieces and leave their king that you lose the game due to poor sportsmanship, especially when you may already have pieces to get a checkmate but choose to add fuel to the fire by moving pawns to upgrade to queens. I say this because this is a bullying tactic where the player with only a king left has no possible way of winning unless they run the opponent’s clock down, and they won’t get a draw either because the draw rule favors the player with more pieces on the board (what pieces they have left to get a checkmate vs the player with only a king). The player with only a king can survive if opponent runs out of time in their attempt to trying to checkmate. But this rarely occurs. I’ve lost a number of games like this, and have played more than 8,000+ games, and it’s frustrating because I can see a player choosing to “send a message” by capturing all of my pieces but my king then upgrade their other pieces. All while they have less than 20 seconds and can clearly get a checkmate with pieces they’ve already have. 

Hi

nah, just make them wait. they waste your time, you waste theirs. Lose by timeout

Two options:

1. Resign

2. Play on, hoping they will stalemate you

Checkmate looks out for wining but capturing all pieces gives satisfaction and will lead to winning eventually anyways

Try this in a tournament and you won't have a friend in the room. People don't want to have to wait for you to finish ******* around.

I was looking for a noun for this kind of game or the person who applies it upon others, and this led me to here. In principle I do agree with you and feel pity for the victim, But chess is a game of war and in war, sadly, almost everything can happen!

I propose "torturment" (torture+ tournament) for the name of this kind of game.

 :smart