The problem is that this kind of thing costs you time and that is very
that's old new bigpoision we tried telling him that 6 pages ago !
how ? both players agreed to the term at the start of the game.
I know. Ivan's post said it all. I just wanted to show my solidarity.
Why don't you try going on vacation also.
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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 :-)