With 5 minute games it's not so long, just et the time run out. But if you're playing a long game 30 mins or more then you have to realize that a person can you their time anyway they want, if they want to take 20 mins for move, so be it. That's somrthing you have to accept. However if a person purposely just let's his time run out because they're losing, then maybe they should get flagged. If thet person get's flagged 2 or 3 times, then maybe they should be banned from playing live chess for maybe 3 months or so. I also wish we could erase those wins from our stats, as I dont want any game like that for my records, I want to earn my ratings, not have them given to me because of people who quit right away.
Letting the time run
Sort:
Part of the problem is that users don't play long games because of this type of behaviour. I keep my live-chess games to 10 minutes per side and under for this very reason. I'd like to play longer games, but I certainly have no interest in babysitting one that's been abandoned. When users aren't utilizing features because of a problem of this nature then I think it deserves some attention.
I agree that there's not an ideal solution, but there are things that can be done to significantly mitigate the problem.
I'm not content to simply throw my hands up and say there is no solution.
I just don't believe that to be the case, and I think it's in the best interest of this site in particular to give some consideration to what can be done about this particular problem.
I think the manual ping suggestion has legs, and I also thing the additional time control suggestion (hourglass or additional per-move limits) could be used to help mitigate this kind of behaviour. I'm sure there are other ideas out there that have merit as well.
May 17, 2009
0
#65
My personal preference would be to allocate some points if somebody abandons a live game and lets the time run out.
If a player accumulates more than a given number of points in some predetermined amount of time, they would be suspended for some period of time.
That way, if somebody lets the time run out by mistake (the oven started a fire or the connection dropped), they would not be penalized.
TheGrobe wrote:
Part of the problem is that users don't play long games because of this type of behaviour.
Many people do not play long games because of cheating.
For the behaviour you discuss here, I guess you should be a little more tolerant. It's not possible to say, from behind a monitor, if your opponent is a jerk or if he did have a problem. Just adding him or her to your noplay list is more than enough.
I've read it, and I don't see it as at all relevant.
In any case, my point is that simply throwing our hands up in the air and saying "It is what it is" is a terribly defeatist attitude. Something can be done to address this problem. It may not be my suggestion, it may not be additional time controls, but it certainly isn't resigning ourselves to it's inevitability.
If you begin implementing these options it is no longer really chess. It is clearly rude when people do this, but the fact remains that the player's time is his/her own to do with as s/he chooses. If you force me to move in three minutes in a critical position where I might need 3.5 minutes all you are doing is forcing me to play a second best option.
In a correspondence game, the situation is pretty much the same. I sometimes take days looking at a position and then fly trought the next few moves because I have analyzed things deeply enough.
When people do this type of thing, trying to control how others use their time is not the answer. Being the better player about it is.
On QueenAlice I was playing several games and was in a critical position in several of them. My grandmother became seriously ill and I totally forgot about the games. Should I be classed as an abuser because I let 4 games run out on my time? How do you tell that I am not lieing? The simplest and best solution is to continue the tradition of chess. If you enter a game, no matter if it is moves perminute or a traditional time control of game in 30, the time assigned to your opponets is your opponent's to do what s/he wants to within the rules of the game.
I think this is a real problem.
Several times I have opponents in live chess who have lost (e.g. a couple of moves from checkmate or materially down with no hope) who decide to vanish and let the clock run down, and perhaps re-appear when they have 10 seconds left to chance their arm that I have forgotten the game and to sneak a win.
Lots of reasons I guess - loss on time isn't a loss, angry at being beaten and wanting to annoy your opponent, hoping for disconnections. It's sad but there you go.
I suspect people who do this will be people who do it repeatedly. And it clearly is abuse. It is a problem where a solution would be desirable if there was one.
I think it comes down to a technological issue - would it be possible to identify these bad losers with minimal effort (i.e. automatic or semi-automatic in response to complaint) and take sanctions against them, without punishing those who have "fair" reasons for the behaviour (I think the repetition is important here). I agree with Rainbow (and others) an "I'm still here" prompt is probably an unsatisfactory answer. Adjournment and adjudication just sounds like a time-consuming nightmare.
Social shame (a black-list of those who run out of time) might be helpful [though maybe against the anti-name and shame policy of the site] e.g. a pop-up that says "X is a bad loser. Are you sure you want to play them?". Or just a list that you get added to after 5 or 10 verifiable complaints (like the cheater list).
It's a difficult one though. I suspect the technology is difficult to accurately detect people doing this automatically - and its not worth the effort of staff to do this manually.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
CircleSquaredd wrote:
You cant tell people how to use thier time.
Yes, actually you can.
And if you are in position to exert physical athority over them, you can even get them to DO what you tell them, which is often the real crux. To this end, I would say history is full of examples that demonstrate the incorrect nature of your position.
That's a load of nonsense. How can Erik police what you do within your allotted time? Who's to make the distinction between thinking time and wasting time? Even waisting your own time is perfectly legal. I don't see this as a problem and I think chess.com shouldn't get into the business of babysitting. If they want a solution for the longer 30+ plus games they can make a ten minute idle button per move to check if your even there, but even that crosses the line considering your still within your time limit.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate here... if I were to play a 30 min game on live chess, I would like the flexibility of being able to leave the board, go make a sandwich, and come back.
Or go use the bathroom, or whatever. Please consider this in your implementation of the one minute button, Erik! :-)
wearing an adult diaper eliminates need to go to bathroom, i have found....just thinking outloud
May 18, 2009
0
#72
I'm happy with whatever chess.com chooses to do, since they usually think things through pretty well.
And usually better than we, the viewing public, have done. Remember, we type whatever comes to our minds in this box here. It's their job. Big difference.
To the OP, chess.com and Erik can't determine if your opponent is thinking or purposely letting the time run out, so just block em and you won't have to deal with them again which you did. I've played over 800 games and I think only 2 were ones where my opponent let the clock tick down to zero. If you've had more than that I feel for ya. Afterwards post a blog with the game letting your friends know so they won't have to go through the same crap you just went through.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
CircleSquaredd wrote:
richie_and_oprah wrote:
CircleSquaredd wrote:
You cant tell people how to use thier time.
Yes, actually you can.
And if you are in position to exert physical athority over them, you can even get them to DO what you tell them, which is often the real crux. To this end, I would say history is full of examples that demonstrate the incorrect nature of your position.
That's a load of nonsense. How can Erik police what you do within your allotted time? Who's to make the distinction between thinking time and wasting time? Even waisting your own time is perfectly legal. I don't see this as a problem and I think chess.com shouldn't get into the business of babysitting. If they want a solution for the longer 30+ plus games they can make a ten minute idle button per move to check if your even there, but even that crosses the line considering your still within your time limit.
You should reread what I wrote and develop a better understanding of what it means and what the point I made is.
Q1. I never stated anything about Eric policing anything. I am however sure, he can tell people what to do. Whether or not Eric specifically is in position to enforce this I did not make any claim. But in general, people that hold physical athority over other people (like police, kid's parents, etc) have no problems forcing things to happen, or to not happen.
Q2. The person doing the thinking/wasting. That is who.
If you want a good site to learn better reading compehension skills, let me know.
Yes someone with a gun pointed to your head can force you do whatever they want, and how is that relevant to the discussion?
I'm sorry but your obviously just arguing for the sake of it (aka trolling).
Well unfortunatley your opponent has the right to waste his time,the downside is that you wait to win on his time.When you could be spending your time with another game.But sometimes they are at a loss as to what to do so they spend their time thinking about how bad the position is and what they can do to overcome it.Its like their brain has totally locked up on them and they can't or won't function properly.So just wait it out til the end and don't play them again.Then again there always the problem with lag and them or you being disconnected.
Not really worth reporting.
Well, thank you for your ideas on this subject!
As the OP, I will say one more time, for the people posting here without reading all the previous posts - I KNOW my opponent has the right to waste his time in the best way he wants! I know the rules!
However, I'm looking for ideas to avoid this to happen and I can see now I'm not the only one affected and annoyed by this!
I also know that the staff here is very busy with other issues and I don't want to waste the Chess.com human resources in dealing with something that some consider is not a problem...
Some people might have to stay away from the board eventually during a game or they might use all the allocated time to think, within their rights...
So, I have proposed to report this kind of behaviour ONLY in cases where is clear and obvious that the player is letting the time run out because of a lost position AND when the staff can check their last few games to prove he is doing this in all or many of his games.
Anyway, it's always nice to have your feedback on this issue! 
erik wrote:
we're going to have a solution to fight this at some point. most likely a button where they have to click after 60 seconds to make sure they are still there.
Btw, as you can see on the post #5, Erik also considers this as a problem!
See what will be when live chess will have an adjourn feature. Then, many will disconnect (and adjourn) their games in a lost position.
costelus wrote:
See what will be when live chess will have an adjourn feature. Then, many will disconnect (and adjourn) their games in a lost position.
Yes, you are right! It has happened to me in another site a few years ago...
But I believe Erik and staff are more creative and might find a better solution for this!
what about losing time in winning position, I have experienced also that some of my game position is winning but due to an avoidable problem with the internet i can submit my move before my time expire is this will consider cheat.