So much for spell check...
I even saw that, then forgot to go back and correct it. Sigh...
Letting the time run
Sort:
TonicoTinoco wrote:
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!
So I have to interrupt my concentration to remember to hit a button or I lose and get flagged as an abuser? It's not that we don't consider the behavior a problem, it's that the suggestions so far are worse than the problem. It's like taking medicine that cures your annoying cough but gives you the runs (because the button is pooping up LOL). If I have to take two minutes on a position I should be able to dedicate the entire two minutes to analysis not 59 seconds, remember to push button or lose, then 59 seconds, remember to push button or lose, finish analysis. It would be a distraction.
It would be better to have the person flagged as an abuser if there are a certain number of comlaints, which I still think is a bad idea.
What is it about this topic that generates a million forums about it????
It doesn't quite work, but it's the best suggestion so far. "Abusers" could still make you wait until their clock gets to 15 seconds (or whatever the number is) and then start moving. I believe some of them already do this in the hope you've gotten bored and wandered off, so this wouldn't change their behaviour.
If the poop-up 
suggestion is implemented I'd just play elsewhere, I don't want distractions when I'm playing.
honestly you sound like a bunch of whiners! if you lose on time or win on time..the game is decided..go on to another game and get over yourselves!
Also...this topic is nearly as annoying as any cheater_1 put out and pretty pathetic as well
RainbowRising wrote:
Rookbuster shut up. Post something constructive or keep your useless comments to yourself.
Is this a useful comment? Seems the same..take your own advice
Useless comments in a useless thread about a useless topic... who would've thunk it?
LYCAN148 wrote:
duyvejonck wrote:
There could be an option for a maximum time per move, e.g. 1 minute in a 5 minute game, or 3 minutes in a 30 minute game.
yes,this is what the rule is in some -not-so-popular-chess-sites.If if make it that if he takes like 5 mins to move then he loses
This is the only option that I would be ok with. It is used on yahoo chess, for example, where the game can be set up as 10 minutes per move or whatever you want. This would give people the option of not accepting games arranged on a time per move basis. Then those who prefer more traditional time controls could continue playing as they have.
I believe my suggestion is the only one that wouldn't result in more pointless threads.
RainbowRising wrote:
You've got a time out ration in correspondance. If I'm not mistaken (which I might be!), this is a measure of how often you have let your games run out of time? Perhaps this could be incorporated into the live chess system for games that are considered blitz or long. Then you could see if someone tends to time out often, and can avoid playing that player. The only problem is what to do if you genuinly lose on time... I think this could be solved quite easily, and I will illustrate with some examples: If you lose on time, and you had more than 15seconds left AFTER you played your last move, then losing on time is no penalty. If you had more than you recieve the penalty. So, let's make this clear. I have 1 min left on my clock. It becomes my move, and I lose on time (I dont make a move). I get a 'black mark', my time out ratio increases etc.. If I have 15seconds left, (15s is just an example but could be as low as 5) and I lose on time, I dont get black marked, because I genuinely lost on time. I think, this could well be problem solved! Please let me know if I have missed anything!
PS disconnections are not black marks because losing by disconnects and losing by time outs are different , and the server can verify the difference.
My only problem with this is that the 15 second rule is quite arbitrary. Why not 20 seconds? Why not 10? If I played only casually this might not be an issue for me. I use the chess servers as training for OTB and I want them to be as close to a real game as possible. The more a chess server becomes less like an OTB game, the less appealing it is to me. I do not want to have to be classed as an abused because I took 16 seconds on a move when I should have only taken 15.
If they use your suggestion as a blanket TC that covers all games, RainbowRising, I am concerned that I will be incorrectly clased as an abuser because 1. I value thinking about my move above winning the game and 2. on occasion something happens during online games that distracts me (my wife, my son, the dog, one of my cats, whatever, and allowing 1 or more seconds to class me as an abuser is foolish. I should not have to worry about when i am making a move in time pressure. I should only have to worry about the move.
May 21, 2009
0
#92
Why not just report abuse and let the staff deal with it. In a perfect world, they would add a comment to the user's file (and to yours too maybe) that this happened. So if the user gets too many complaints then there's clearly a problem. Or if you are the only one reporting a problem, and you report a problem with many many people, then you are the problem.
I kind of wish the report abuse page were a little less complicated. Like I wish I could have a very simple method for reporting abuse for a forum post. Or for a game. Maybe it's just as simple as prefilling in some of the stuff.
RainbowRising wrote:
I think you misread my post.
Please elaborate.
lol let them keep wasting time.. i figure if its over and he cant accept it.. i just go make a sandwhich :)
That's a great idea, RainbowRising. It could be used as a statistic, like timeouts, and you could set your seeks to play only people with less than five of those or whatnot.
RainbowRising wrote:
Ok, if I am not mistaken, you thought I said you should be ALLOWED 15seconds PER MOVE. That is not what I meant. If I may, please let me illustrate what I meant more clearly with an example:
In a game between player A and player B, the time controls are ONE HOUR EACH. Now, player A has just moved, and has 50minutes LEFT on his clock. Player B responds with a great move, and player A being player A, decides to abandon the game, but does so by letting his time RUN OUT. If he loses the game by letting his time run out, and his time AFTER HE MADE HIS LAST MOVE, is greater than 15seconds, he gets the black mark. Yes, 15seconds is totally arbitrary, but the number we chose needs to be small enough so that the player isn't punished for losing on time fairly. So if he has 10 seconds left, makes a move, and it's his turn again, andhe loses on time, he won't be punished, because it is clear he loses legitamitly on time, and hasn't just let his clock run down.
Is that clearer or have I confused you more?
No, I understood you the first time. Like I said I should not have to worry about reaching a time quota when I am already in time pressure. If I am down to my last minute, I want to be able to worry about the position. I do not want to have to remember that I have to make sure I move with more than 15 seconds between my last move and my second to last move.
Now if you make this 10 minutes, or maybe even 5, between the last and second to last move I might agree that this COULD BE a workable idea because I could easily ignore the fact that the rule even exists for the most part.
It still does not stop BadPlayer001 from accepting my seek, getting into a lost position and sitting until the last 10 minutes and then moving, hoping I have walked away from the computer. And what if I have walked away? If my time runs out then I get classed as the abuser, not BadPlayer001?
Trying to legislate how a player uses their time is, IMO, a bad idea. Like I said in my response. How is 15 seconds any different from 30 seconds? What if I am terrible at time management and don't even realise my clock is running out? I think I have 3 minutes and I only have 30 seconds? Boom, my flag falls, I had over 15 seconds between my last and second to last moves. I get a black mark. This idea could potentially punishes the innocent so as to try and correct rudeness by a few players. And if it does not punish, it would certainly inconvenience. Keep standard time controls standard!
Yes, usually that is the case and if I had less that a minute on the clock and my opponent had more, I would honestly resign.
As far as losing on time, goes... That depends on the situation. Again if my opponent had just as little time as I did, then yes, I will just move.
My major issue as a chess player at the moment is learning to use a consistent and efficient thought process. I used to move to fast and then sit and think hard to try and find a way to get out of the mess I had gotten myself into. I am now winning games against much higher rated players because I am using my thought process and they are playing the way I used to. Thinking during a game in this way is not natural to me and I am using my online play to train it. This means I get close to the line on time, and I just do not want to have to worry about this in addition to my training.
Now there is one thing I know for sure, though. If one of these @$$es is forced to come back to a game after 10 minutes, he probably will... It will not increase any one's enjoyment of the game, we will just be complaining about the same issue from a slightly different perspective.
If chess.com is going to do something about this I would suggest they simply take complaints about this type of behavior, which I completely loathe and detest BTW, verify that it in fact occurred from time stamp records and after X number of occurrences in a 3 month period you get the black mark. Make a filter in the seek so that we can exclude players who are classed as "campers" or whatever you want to call it. Just for the record this has happened to me several times and if I could convince the TCP/IP gods to reach through the Ethernet cable and throttle people who did this, I would. But I do not want measures taken against it that could adversely affect my game.
May 22, 2009
0
#99
Interesting discussion.
One thing the site could do is to track such a metric behind the scenes, and then to see if it matches up against abuse reports.
Also one point you haven't addressed is how increments would play a role. If I'm playing a 30 30 game (which I would never do LOL) but if I were, then it's not nearly as big a deal for me to flag when my previous move was made with 1 min left.
Unfortunately, this is a public site open to many. The suggest that Chess.com will have to make rulings or ways to stop playing against someone who wants to run out the clock only after a few maneuvers is up to them. That is why I only play non-rated games on public sites, so when I run into this type of player, I’ll resign then block them.
Have a great day in Christ!
This is a silly thing to be upset about. When you sit down to play a 5 min game you are committing up to 10 minutes of time. In this sense, I don't see how anyone could be wasting your time. Yes your opponent may be being passive aggressive. But guess what, by reacting you're just helping him out.
Also, the one minute then click Idea seems obtrusive. I know someone who often stops and goes into deep analysis mode for a minute and a half when he gets to the critical position in a blitz game, then plays the rest of his moves in 60 seconds. I would imagine a little button pooping up and needing to be clicked could be quite a distraction in this case.