Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Player stalling in hopelessly lost game -- chess.com will do nothing about it


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #101

    bigpoison

    cjsab wrote:
    kco wrote:

    even you suggested it, it still the same as telling him to resign !

    that is why ivandh pointed it out...

      

    22 Hours Ago · Quote · #46

    ivandh 

    cjsab wrote:
    ...
    I didn't "ask him to resign".  I simply ... asked if he'd like to just go ahead and resign

    ...

    A case of "selective editing", omitting the accompanying suggestion that we just go ahead and start a new game, since the outcome of the present one was entirely obvious and there was no point whatsoever in continuing.

    And when exactly did "asking" or "suggesting" come to be synonymous with "telling" or "commanding"?  Have the semantics of the English language suddenly changed overnight, and I somehow missed it?

    It's really becoming quite tedious repeatedly trying to explain that I merely made a friendly suggestion to point out that he did have the option of sparing us both the complete waste of time of playing out a game whose outcome was obvious, so that we might get on with a new game.

    Does anyone still not understand this?


    *raises hand*

    How does your offer of a rematch have anything to do with requesting that your opponent resign?!

    You made a "friendly suggestion" that your opponent give up 'cause he's beat?  How does one go about doing such a thing, exactly?

    It's no wonder he prolonged the game. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #102

    ponz111

    The problem is that this kind of thing costs you time and that is very

    important.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #103

    kco

    that's old new bigpoision Laughing we tried telling him that 6 pages ago !

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #104

    kco

    ponz111 wrote:

    The problem is that this kind of thing costs you time and that is very

    important.

    how ? both players agreed to the term at the start of the game.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #105

    bigpoison

    kco wrote:

    that's old new bigpoision  we tried telling him that 6 pages ago !

    I know.  Ivan's post said it all.  I just wanted to show my solidarity.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #106

    DENVERHIGH

    Why don't you try going on vacation also.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #107

    cookiemonster161140

    nameno1had wrote:
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:

    Um, is he on vacation in all of his games...or just yours? 
    Hint: read the rules of chess.

    Also while nameno1had's suggestion might be fun, overpromoting will get you flagged as a poor sport in live chess. Even though you are in full compliance with the rules of chess, the site's fair play policy doesn't exactly follow the rules of chess.

    I've never heard of that one. I find that interesting that they won't nail someone for stalling, but they will decide it is unfair to " overpromote"? I'd have to see it to believe it. He doesn't necessarily have to promote or checkmate either. I don't think they flag your account for that one.

    In live chess, you can get flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct under the fair play policy if you promote a bunch of pawns when realistically you only need one or two queens. That's according to staff in prior forum posts.

    I am speculating, but if chess.com was consistent then in a "slow" or turn based game the same rules would apply.

    Against weaker opponents in live chess I sometimes have the opportunity to make two, three or even four queens. So far as I know I haven't been dinged. Maybe that's because in time pressure I sometimes move stupidly and end up stalemating my opponent (who refused to resign in hopeless positions-what I want to know is, why hasn't computer2 medium been sactioned yet? He always plays to mate and he NEVER resigns).

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #108

    AnthonyCG

    cookiemonster161140 wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:

    Um, is he on vacation in all of his games...or just yours? 
    Hint: read the rules of chess.

    Also while nameno1had's suggestion might be fun, overpromoting will get you flagged as a poor sport in live chess. Even though you are in full compliance with the rules of chess, the site's fair play policy doesn't exactly follow the rules of chess.

    I've never heard of that one. I find that interesting that they won't nail someone for stalling, but they will decide it is unfair to " overpromote"? I'd have to see it to believe it. He doesn't necessarily have to promote or checkmate either. I don't think they flag your account for that one.

    In live chess, you can get flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct under the fair play policy if you promote a bunch of pawns when realistically you only need one or two queens. That's according to staff in prior forum posts.

    I doubt that. As annoying as it may be there is technically nothing illegal about doing it.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #109

    cookiemonster161140

    AnthonyCG wrote:
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:

    Um, is he on vacation in all of his games...or just yours? 
    Hint: read the rules of chess.

    Also while nameno1had's suggestion might be fun, overpromoting will get you flagged as a poor sport in live chess. Even though you are in full compliance with the rules of chess, the site's fair play policy doesn't exactly follow the rules of chess.

    I've never heard of that one. I find that interesting that they won't nail someone for stalling, but they will decide it is unfair to " overpromote"? I'd have to see it to believe it. He doesn't necessarily have to promote or checkmate either. I don't think they flag your account for that one.

    In live chess, you can get flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct under the fair play policy if you promote a bunch of pawns when realistically you only need one or two queens. That's according to staff in prior forum posts.

    I doubt that. As annoying as it may be there is technically nothing illegal about doing it.

     

    Annoying, yes. Legal, yes.

    But chess.com has changed the rules of chess slightly in order to implement that fair play policy in live chess and I specifically recall a posting where staff indicated that unsportsmanlike conduct includes making too many queens. 

    Odd though, because computer 2 medium always plays on in hopeless positions until you mate it. Is this a double standard?

    Regarding some of those other live chess rule changes...I still don't have a satisfactory answer from staff as to how the server knows you are in a deep think vs. having abandoned the game. 

    Don't many blitz games end on time anyway? 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #110

    cjsab

    Sorry for not posting any more followups in this thread the last several days, folks, but I just got tired of repeating myself.  :-)

    Yes, happily, my opponent finally lost on time.  Kind of strange, actually, he had gone on vacation for about the third time, and then I suddenly received notice that I had won the game.  Guess either his vacation time ran out on him, or chess.com stepped in and took action against him.

    So, all's well that ends well.  Thanks for all the interesting comments, even the ones that were critical of me.  :-)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #111

    FirebrandX

    AnthonyCG wrote:
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    cookiemonster161140 wrote:

    Um, is he on vacation in all of his games...or just yours? 
    Hint: read the rules of chess.

    Also while nameno1had's suggestion might be fun, overpromoting will get you flagged as a poor sport in live chess. Even though you are in full compliance with the rules of chess, the site's fair play policy doesn't exactly follow the rules of chess.

    I've never heard of that one. I find that interesting that they won't nail someone for stalling, but they will decide it is unfair to " overpromote"? I'd have to see it to believe it. He doesn't necessarily have to promote or checkmate either. I don't think they flag your account for that one.

    In live chess, you can get flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct under the fair play policy if you promote a bunch of pawns when realistically you only need one or two queens. That's according to staff in prior forum posts.

    I doubt that. As annoying as it may be there is technically nothing illegal about doing it.

    And it's not even annoying either. All you have to do is resign when you know you are lost. Nobody forces you to have to keep playing. As such, it would be VERY unwise of chess.com to take such a stance on what moves you make on the board. I know if they did, quite a few people would boycott this site on principle alone.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #112

    BenMullen1

    I largely disagree with all the comments claiming that "stalling" is somehow bad, or that chess.com does not do enough to stop it.  Chess.com did the best thing ever to stop it, put in time controls.  If its 3 days per move and your opponent moves once every 3 days then you really have nothing to complain about, on the contrary, you should be happy you are winning.

    Additionally, since time controls already exist for online chess, what is even meant here by "stalling".  So long as players move within that time frame they are playing within the rules and not "stalling" at all.  So I'm a bit confused as to the mechanics behind stalling at all.  It seems impossible where time controls are already built into the rules.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #113

    BenMullen1

    the use, or misuse of vacation is considered stalling a game, why? why not just play more chess games against other players.  People are only granted a certain amount of vacation after all, just start new chess games, we'll all be here 2.5 months from now, but that player will be out of vacation.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #114

    OldHastonian

    BenMullen1 wrote:

    I largely disagree with all the comments claiming that "stalling" is somehow bad, or that chess.com does not do enough to stop it.  Chess.com did the best thing ever to stop it, put in time controls.  If its 3 days per move and your opponent moves once every 3 days then you really have nothing to complain about, on the contrary, you should be happy you are winning.

    Additionally, since time controls already exist for online chess, what is even meant here by "stalling".  So long as players move within that time frame they are playing within the rules and not "stalling" at all.  So I'm a bit confused as to the mechanics behind stalling at all.  It seems impossible where time controls are already built into the rules.

    To save you the bother of reading the Thread you are posting in, this is the issue in this matter:-

    From the site rules...

    "Vacation abuse occurs when players use vacation time simply to prolong games that are completely and hopelessly lost."

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #115

    cjsab

    Grousey wrote:
    To save you the bother of reading the Thread you are posting in, this is the issue in this matter:-

    From the site rules...

    "Vacation abuse occurs when players use vacation time simply to prolong games that are completely and hopelessly lost."

    Yep, that is precisely what my opponent was doing.

    Regardless of all the "fine points" that have been bandied about through the course of this discussion, in the final analysis, such a despicable tactic can only reveal itself for what it truly is: a grossly unethical violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law with regards to "fair play", a pathetically childish and completely unrealistic attempt to avoid inevitable defeat, running completely counter to common convention and standards of sportsmanlike conduct in chess-playing circles.

    I cannot begin to imagine how anyone resorting to such a practice could possibly derive anything in the way of some sort of positive reward from doing so, unless they are of such low character and so lacking in the ability to be honest with themselves that, like some smirking little juvenile nimrod thinking he's cleverly gotten away with some act of petty mischief, they somehow manage to delude themselves into thinking they've actually accomplished something worthwhile in the process.  How they're able to reconcile such a misguided notion against the actual outcome is a mystery even they themselves most likely would be hard pressed to explain.

    While my first instinctive reaction is to despise such individuals, they're really more to be pitied than anything.  How sad for them, if this disingenuous approach of theirs spills over into other aspects of their lives (as, in all likelihood, it does).  They're doomed to lots of disappointment and rude awakenings, I would dare say.

    Conrad, now stepping down from his philosophers' stump :-)


Back to Top

Post your reply: