I do not want a reply from non-staff.  There are enough threads out there with comments by the members but in the end they are meaningless.

A new vacation "abuse" policy has been implemented.  Amoung other things it makes a person's vacation time subject to the questioning and approval of his opponent.  I find the concept wrong, can I make my opponent subject to my membership fees?  Seems appropriate since he now controls some of my account.

The policy calls for adjudication of lost positions.  If the position is lost, what is to adjudicate?  So who determined it was lost so the "abuse" policy could be invoked?  What is a lost position?  By the rules of chess I can think of three, mated, out of time, resigned.  Obviously Chess.com has come up with some new rules of chess.  What are they?  After all, not winnable is not the same as lost.  A statement such as "A position in which a 1200 player might be reasonably expected to beat a GM."  is both subjective and ridiculous.  B+N vs. K is a theoretical win, every watch a 1200 player try to execute it?  Advantage of 2 pawns is generally considered a win between GMs, does that apply here at all levels?

Or is the real rule, Scream loud enough and we will placate you?

---

 I can't find any mention of this policy on the site. 'Amongst other things', so there is actually more in the policy then is mentioned above? I too would welcome a staff response to this post.

---

Probably best not to post in the public forum then.

---

How about a link to wherever the OP got this information?

As far as I know we have only adjudicated games if it is a repeat offense in an absolutely completely obviously lost position and if that game is a tournament game that is the las game that is holding up the progress of the event. In other words, I have personally adjudicated a total of 3 games in a 3 year period. Matt (patzer24) may have done a handful as well. But if it's happened more than 20 times in the last few years (out of millions of games played), it's news to me. Any reason this has you suddenly concerned?

I think he's just bored :)

Thanks for the response Eric. What about the comments regarding a new vacation policy?

Still waiting a definition of lost position.

 

http://www.chess.com/article/view/do-chess-pros-blunder

---

well the staff claims it knows but isn't sharing the secret.  By my lights (and the rules of chess) there are only 3:   Mated, out of time, resignation.

one move before inevitable mate isnt a lost position?

FIDE's Laws of Chess cite dozens of ways of losing a game of chess e.g. arriving at the chess board late (article 10.15); but see also new-fide-rules and whats-up-with-fides-quotzero-tolerancequot-for-not-being-seated.

---

In the spirit of this thread:  what exactly does it mean to arrive late?  This needs to be defined by FIDE.  It's too ambiguous.  Can you imagine?  FIDE deciding who wins the game?

---

The round starts at a certain time and if you're not in your seat at that time then you forfeit. When the rule became more strict players were literally falling in the common areas while trying to get to the board on time. I remember one IM falling right behind his chair and he still was disqualified.

---

Makes sense to me.  Reasonable people would be satisified with that definition.  But the rule book doesn't specify the exact conditions under which one has arrived late.  So I assume that there are those who would demand clarification in the rules.  You know, rules lawyers and all.

Here's a definition of Lost Position:  Any Chess game position from which a player must lose with accurate play.  Many complex lost positions may still offer winning or drawing chances with alert play.  (From http://www.chess-poster.com/english/glossary) 

In my opinion, the staff has acted very reasonably to adjucate certain games in very specific circumstances.  And as far as I can tell, there has not been a change in policy. 

---

FIDE was brutally specific this time around. Since players were showing up an hour late at times they pulled this refined rule out last year. If you aren't in your seat at the right time you lose. It didn't matter how close you were to the chair. Lots of players forfeited standing beside their chairs the first week.

A lot of people complained but nothing changed. No one is bringing it up anymore but that's probably just politics.

---

I think the players were better off without the clarification.  Instead of seeing how close you can come to breaking the rule without actually breaking it, just do your best to obey the rule.  Then you don't have to worry about the technical details and everyone is better off for it.  (BTW, I mean "you" in the generic "you" sense).

---

I agree. Chess seems less "people friendly" when they do things like this.

I welcome site changes but only in a tournament scenario, 

I have had an opponent in a forced mate position who waited until he had a few hours left and then take vacation time before the win was eventually recorded,

However its not such an offence for 'lets play' objective to sit at the bottom of the pile on vacation. For tournaments however, many people may be waiting on the result and is therfore more onerous ...

Based on what you have described, I don't believe that you could say that your opponent intended to delay a lost game through the use of vacation time.  Sometimes emergencies occur and take priority over chess.  That would be a legitimate use of vacation time, IMO.