16627 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
There's another important point to be made here, and it may be why some players are supporting chess.com's mind-reading software (aka the"fair-play policy"). I've played many games where I've gone up a piece or two early on, even a queen, and got annoyed when my opponent didn't resign. But then, somehow, I managed to get in trouble, and occasionally, even lost the game. Sometimes I just made blunders, but sometimes I just misjudged the position. My "annoying, obviously lost" opponent got the win. As the saying goes, it's not over 'til it's over. Is it possible these people supporting this policy just don't want to do the work and convert their "overwhelming advantage" to a win? They don't want to run the risk of blowing a "won" game.
I raised that same possibility in multiple prior posts.
Players who think they are winning but don't know how to convert will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.
Players who think they are winning but they're really not, will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.
Players who think they are winning and might be winning but don't have enough time left on the clock will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.
I could go on...but this possibilities are so basic I just don't get why people still complain when they should be out there winning games. If they were really winning that is.
It seems there is a small cadre of people who either didnt read the thread title or just dont get it.
IMDeviate, try rereading the OP and see if it relates, in any way, to your off-topic response.
by the way imdeviate I never said anything about winning or losing.
i just played my fifth game on live chess and my opponent said he has to go and let time run out instead of resigning, strange because there was only three minutes left.
I think your opponent used a lame excuse, how long does it take to click on the resign button I also like the guys that will abort a game on move one because they are higher rated and are afraid to lose to someone lower rated. Some people act like idiots what can you do
I once had a situation where I lost track of time and found myself faced with the possibility of being late for class. Despite having a clear tactical disadvantage, my opponent refused the draw I offered. I checkmated him a minute later and made it to class on time :)
If the person is in a losing position, how do we know they are skilled enough
to know that they are ina losing position?
You know by their rating and how well or bad they played against you and of course other factors.
This is unbelievable! Staff member kohai states in post #4 that "players should not stall to make opponents wait unnecessarily". I agree that this is rude and obnoxious and players shouldn't do it. But there is no accurate way to determine if a player is stalling or just thinking. That's what the clock is for..... Duh! If chess.com wants players to move faster, simply recommend shorter time controls. They should not penalize players they think are stalling, when in fact they may just be thinking. It's in the very nature of the game that players occasionally take a long time to make a move. If it happens to be a player's last move, because his clock runs out, so be it. The other player should just be happy with the win and quit griping because he had to wait...... I believe this website's engineers are well-meaning, but this technological attempt to regulate human behavior is ridiculous.
I agree with this post 100%. I would never do it, but if the opponent chooses to do it then so be it. When this happens to me I just do a quick chore around the house or open a new tab and browse for a while. Of course I'm always reverting my attention back to the game in case my opponent tries to move quickly at the end and win on time. This is just something internet players should have to deal with rather than try to track them with some kind of system while insnaring the innocent. If this type of behavior bothers people that much, I would suggest to play over the board or keep track of players that do this in your notes so you know who not to play. This type of behavior is equivalent to someone just walking away from the board in a horrible position. The game is immediately forfeited and you are declared the winner so if you play over the board then you won't have to deal with this behavior. Otherwise quit griping and chalk it up as a win. Moreover, a real poor sport could just sit at the board and run down time out of spite. That is when you get up and go for a stroll around the room. Many GMs and other players don't always sit at the board when it's not their turn. And to reiterate what is in the quote above, that is ONE of the reasons the clock is there in the first place. Who cares what they do with their time. A win is a win.
If you think you can tell your opponent when to resign you might as well
just play againts yourself. Show some sportsmanship and don't take it so
I just lost to a guy on time ...
he has 12 mins left i have 2
i will win by mate in 1 move after his ...... i thought he had lost connectivity and moves to casual browsing .... he doesnt resign and waits till 11 mins moves which i dont obviously see and wins on time ... after this he types in stupidcomments in chat window ... these guys should be banned and game points should be returned ... this has happened to me a several times now ... why dont chess.com add some mechanism to enforce fairplay ...
I had this happen. I was wining a game, and the guy had about 10 min on the clock. He let it go down to 50 seconds, then moved. To his surprise, I was still there. Then, he lost for sure.
I too used to ask for a draw if a game was even, and I had to run off on an emergency call. But, now...I just resign. It was my bad, but I got a clue. Never had a restriction but wont for sure now.
On the disconnect however, I do have bad connections at home. And I have lost several game to my disconnection. It seems to be better now, but still...there are some of those that are legit. I do hope the staff can make exceptions in those cases. I always document it in the notes on the game if that happens.
It has also happened to me. I obviously had the advantage in many games and my opponent didnt play hi next move because......well I dont know, he is stupid. I dont understand such kinds of ridiculous behavior. If you realise that you 99% have lost then just resign and dont waste people's time. If you are one from those who are tough nuts, then play but dont let time past on purpose. Its not polite and generally fair and honest. Its like saying to your opponent ''Hey, you know something? You are an idiot who just beat me. Therefore I will punish you by breaking your nerves with the clock.!''. DEFEAT IS DEFEAT, you played, the other got the advantage and you lose.......SO SIMPLE! And of course i am reffering to all kind of games except 1 min, 2 min etc. SO BE GOOD OPPONENTS BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE GAME. THE OPPONENT MUST BE ALWAYS RESPECTABLE WETHER HE LOSES OR WINS.
While you make some good points, I need to point out that a player can legitimately lose on time at any real-time time contol, and especially where there is only one sudden death time period. You certainly shouldn't have to resign if you only have a 1% chance of winning, but have the right to play for that 1%. No question, deliberate stalling or simply abandoning a game are not acceptable conduct.
You are right, but I am talking about waiting on purpose in order to break the opponent's nerves. I agree on what you say regarding everyone's right to keep on playing if they want to.
you are right i suppose. i much prefer the other chess where you have two or three days to move.
You are all nolifers that's all :]]] There is so much unfair in the world , and you get upset about a guy or two , who do not take this game seriously? :DD Glassy nerd , go get a life, and jsut enjoy the game. so what , he left the timer running ... wow , just go play another game , you nolifers must have premium membership either way :}
Letting time run out rather than resigning shows a person without class.
It also shows a person who has a very poor understanding of chess.
Bunk, if you know you are going to lose because of time and/or position and there is no way not to lose-you should resign--it is not fighting spirit
to sit there while time runs out.
And I if you do sit until time runs out--that does not necessarily mean your opponent will get angry at you.
Is there any way to set up a virtual arbiter, and give a player the ability to petition for a win or draw? Of course if the petition is not granted a time penality would be assessed to the petitioner. A lost position is a lost position,regardless of a players ability to evaluate a chess game.
Ok, I had yet to read all the posts before I added my initial comment, I call this thread a draw by the threefold repetition.
I agree with melvinbluestone.
What? We only play by the rules if it doesn't inconvenience us? And if it does, then, not?
I've been in lots of situations in live chess where I've thought about a position for ten minutes- that doesn't make me a cheater or bad sport. I wasn't stalling, I was thinking.
If you don't like the way someone plays or you think that they're a bad sport- block them.
It's ridiculous for chess.com to penalize someone when they're playing within the rules.
And, just for the record, I've had several games where my opponent stalled and let the clock run out rather than resign- I've never done that to anyone else.
I would hope everyone understands that there will not be a consensus on this matter.
Is there something inherently wrong with the desire to play under extended time controls without having to wait for, in some instances, hours to complete a game that is obviously won?
If you are content with the way the rules are established that is fine. Although various types of alternative games/controls could create a playing experience that can be enjoyed by a wider audience.
Good point, and funny too!
Kramnik: suspicious trips to the bathroom?!
by TheGrobe a few minutes ago
A woman, a dog, a shotgun, a bicycle and a chessboard
by oopsie007er a few minutes ago
We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.
by fissionfowl 3 minutes ago
Why hasn't Ivanov been banned yet?
by waffllemaster 3 minutes ago
why e4 is better than d4.
by Scottrf 4 minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by oko7 8 minutes ago
I drew against COMPUTER 3 - HARD in blitz!!
by macer75 8 minutes ago
by akafett 9 minutes ago
London Chess Classic - Super 16 Rapid 2013
by Scottrf 11 minutes ago
does OTB rating vary geographically?
by hicetnunc 16 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!