Letting the time run

Is it time there was a crybaby section added to the forums?

I think the remedy suggested by staff is worse than desease. I'm sure that there are much more people who take more than a minute to consider their moves than people who let the time run out. And having to think about not forgetting to press some button would surely mess up thoughts about the possible moves.

I hate to wait also.  Those are the parameters agreed upon, though.  Often in games, I move quickly in the beginning, knowing that later I can use that time.  I agree that having to "click" just to say "here I am" would interrupt me. 

Play faster games.  Or wait it out.  Block the person.  Read a book.  Stretch.  Jump Rope.

I'm sorry, I didn't see it shot down, nor did I see the reason -- can you elaborate or direct me to the relevant post(s)?

My suggestion is to install a hug button.  Any time someone feels like their opponent is playing too slowly/quickly/badly/well/sneakily and/or being rude to them, they press the button and get a VIRTUAL HUG.  I believe this would solve many of the complaints.

The virtual hug would be given only to people who need it, when they need it.

The toilet, the door and the phone I can understand..., but a sandwich?  I agree that the mandatory "I'm here" response that was initially suggested (and that the responses you've cited were actually in reference to) is problematic, but I think that by making it user driven within some tight controls around when it can be initiated you get around a lot of these issues.

Incidentally, if the doorbell or the phone rings, or I need to step away for a moment I'll typically let my opponent know so in theory they should be unlikely to actually trigger the prompt if you at least give them that courtesy.

As I said in post #16, it is all very back of the napkin.  Do you have other suggestions, or something that you think would improve mine?  The constructive part of this discussion should collaborative so I'm interested in hearing others thoughts.  You'll forgive me for saying so, but "I don't like it -- NEXT!" is hardly constructive.

You're offering solutions to something that is not a problem.  Using all your time is not against the rules and you can only "claim" it's rude if you know exactly what your opponent is doing.  It's highly unlikely you'll know what he's doing, unless he tells you "I'm going to make you wait until my time runs out".

Honestly - you agree to a set time control and believe the time control should be changed halfway through just because you're winning? 

You're agreeing to play a game for as long as it takes up to that time control.  If you're opponent denies you the game-play aspect of that agreement, then why should the time limit portion still hold?

This is a problem -- I've experienced it and I'm not alone.  This thread, and many others like at are evidence of that.

Just because I agreed to commit up to the time limit doesn't mean that I want to babysit an abandoned game for the better part of that commitment.

RainbowRising -- go back and read my original suggestion a little more closely.  The answers to your first question is in there.  Your second point is a valid one and should be taken into account.

The only problem is people seem to be playing the wrong game.  The rules of chess are quite simple.  You have no influence on how your opponent uses his time, and he has no influence over how you use yours.  Can you imagine trying to implement some of these "suggestions" in a real tournament?

"I'm sorry Vlad, you've taken more than 5 minutes to move so your opponent is claiming his free poke in the eye."

"Your game Vishy?  You went to the toilet so we forfeited you.  Better work on that bladder control!"

Although I agree that using all the allocated time is not against the rules, it becomes very clear when a player is doing that repetitively and to many different opponents, when he is in a lost position.

Many of the suggestions here ( including staff ), where to offer solutions DURING the game, like a "I'm here" button and others...

I honestly believe that much better for staff would be to check the games AFTER they finish and, if the same pattern of letting the time run out in a lost position appears constantly in a player's history like this one I'm talking about, THEN he would be punished!

What do you think? 

I've had opponent's sit there for more than 15 minutes before resigning.  Do I nudge them and tell them I've got somewhere to be?  No, I'm happy enough to win and if they'd like to spend a few more minutes checking all resources have been exhausted, that's their call.

I spend a lot of time away from the board OTB.  I know more than one strong player who spends more time away from the board than at it.

However, as you so cleverly pointed out - OTB you can see what your opponent is doing.  Here you can't, yet you assume the worst?  If my opponent's clock runs down I'm not going to assume hes "an arse".  I'm going to be happy I've won, and waiting a few more minutes for the win isn't going to kill me.  I certainly wouldn't complain about in case he did have a legitimate reason for leaving the computer.

You said he's "being an arse by not playing".  That seems like assuming the worst to me.

My opinions is that people in a lost position  may simply be allowing their time to run in hopes that the other person gets disconnected thereby winning by abandonment/resignation of the player in the winning position.  I would not have a problem with people reporting this, and perhaps if you do it once you get a warning, and twice and your suspended or something.  It's one thing to allow the person his alloted time, but with the instability that has been expressed in live chess, that instability is probably being abused.

My point is it's impossible to tell if your opponent is being an arse, unless he tells you he's being an arse.

If your opponent doesn't say anything, how on earth do you know what he's doing?  Obvious answer:  you don't.

If your opponent was letting his time run out in a real tournament, what would you do?

I think it's fine how it is.  When I play a 30+ minute game I want to be able to leave the game for whatever reason.  I want to take my time and enjoy the game for either a critical move or any other household reason that may arise.  Sometimes a break from the screen can bring a fresh perspecitve too. 

You cant tell people how to use thier time.

This thread has convinced me that this problem has no solution...

Dear Anthony, 

Taking time to play is not the same as letting the time run out in a lost position...

As I said before, I still consider that there is nothing to do during the game but maybe after receiving some complaints for a specific player who constantly do that, the staff could check the games to see if it would deserve some punishment.

Note that I'm only advocating some punishment for people that repeteadly let the time run out in a lost position or when they lose a piece, as in my original example here, in order to avoid unfair punishment on isolated or genuine cases when a player is forced or need to leave the game for a while.