On "using vacation days" on "hopelessly lost games"

When I turn on vacation pauses, this website pops up a warning that I'd better not be trying to use the pause to prolong "hopelessly lost games."

The first time I read the message, I chewed my lip and worried the site would punish me because I was behind in at least one of my games, but I wasn't sure if being behind was the same as "hopelessly lost."

The next time I read the message, I was behind in most of my games. At that point if Chess.com was going to punish me I didn't care. Losing was worse than anything they could do to me. I figured if they kicked me off the site, I'd just go somewhere else.

Since then I've thought a lot about what a "hopelessly lost game" is. I thought back to the Anand-Topolov games that ended in draws and the games both champions lost, after making 60 or more moves.

I've concluded a couple of things about Chess.com's threat:

1) No one has the godlike ability to identify a hopelessly lost game.

2) Amateur and professional chess (Anand-Topolov) are very different. In a professional game, observers can expect both players to make good moves and few blunders. A professional game can eventually become a hopelessly lost game, and the loser will resign rather than make a fool of himself. But in an amateur game--even one in which the opponents have very different ratings--no one can say that the higher-rated player will never make a mistake.

3) Very few amateur players (whom I've encountered) know how to win an endgame quickly. You all try to win with a knock-out mate, and when you're playing a less experienced player you usually win that way. But when your opponent manages to reach the endgame, you can't figure out how to knock her out in a couple of moves.

In other words, I don't believe there is such a thing as a hopelessly lost game. And even if you show me one, I defy you to be able to explain to me why the loser in an amateur game doesn't have the right to finish the game and learn from the experience.

It seems that you're missing the point.

No one is challenging your right to play the game until the end, however, you are not allowed to stall a game using vacation days(so called "vacation abuse").

http://support.chess.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=691&nav=0,6

And I dont think that chess.com would declare "completely and hopelessly lost" a game in which only a GM would find a forced win. It had to be a game where even a moderate player could win the ending against GM.

Maybe chess.com could show an examples of such games so everyone would have a better info.

I believe that such adjudication have been enforced from time to time.

Showing some examples and the explanation behind it(not only the games itself but the behaviour of the "vacation abuser") IMO would definitely help to explain the reasoning(to those against adjudication) why did chess.com introduced adjudication in the first place.

My experience is that adjudications of completely lost games are being used very rarely here, independant of whether the losing player happens to be on vacation or not.

The reason is that they are most often not necessary at all, because it is mostly not really important when exactly someone wins a winning game.

I agree with ccmambretti that this additional message when switching on vacation looks very strange to all unexpecting users. My recommendation would be to do without such a message and without the try to state an unusual rule with it.

But then someone might claim that he/she wasn't informed about potential adjudication.

To my eyes, the question of adjudication has very little to do with vacation use.

Adjudication normally makes most sense if one wants to create a possibility to proceed swiftly with the next round of a tournament. If adjudication is intended to be done on completely losing games on other occasions, then vacation use is one of the least important factors needing consideration.

Seeing that this is a site with a huge number of ongoing games, it makes a lot of sense to me to do without adjudication whereever possible.

     Hopelessly lost? 

Whether vacation should be a factor is another question.

The stalemate possibility is just one of the problems with adjudication

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=31691518

At what rating is stalemate not likely? Although timeout is still on the table.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=15671130

Adjudication is not bad if used properly and rarely.

I have a similar game going right now.  Black has just the king against my queen, bishop, knight and many pawns, and I have him in a corner with just 2 squares available for him.  Its mate in 2 whatever he does.  My opponent is not abusing vacation time, but is taking the whole 3 days for each move over his past 4 moves, and is playing other games at a normal rate.

My theory is that players do this to artificially maintain their higher rating for as long as possible.  But isn't it better to lose such games quickly, then regain your rating faster on your next win?

Lol!  Love that response.  He may have been hoping that, but I went and looked at several of his games and it appeared that he was doing the same thing.  Just avoiding the loss.  I think Jantar was right, I think he was just trying to hold onto his rating for a little longer.

Lol, nope, I'm not old.  Well, my wife says I am.  But I'm still a youngster at the ripe young age of 32.

What's really funny is that even if the opponent died, he still would lose because of the conditional move.

That would be a first, no?

Regardless of the merits, that seems to be a pretty rude comment for the site to make.  I started playing here because I thought it was a friendly environment.  I am starting to have second thoughts.

You're not focusing on the important part -- yes hopelessly lost is subjective but prolonging isn't.  If you need time off then that's fine.  It's trying to prolong the games for no reason (other than the person dislikes to lose) that's frowned upon.

People need to grow up and play like Men and Women. If you lose you lose, if you win you win, if you draw you draw. No games. Chess is Just a game, but playing "games" in not Chess. I have a string of losses so long I can't count, but with every loss I learn what not to do wrong. So why play Ego games? It's silly and gets you nowhere. If you are so afraid to lose you will never be able learn to win... Farrok

Yes, but with a Queen, what's taking White so long to mate that lonely Black King? I've been in situations close to Black's in your example. I haven't yet played 100 games in my life. And when I get in that situation, I wish my opponent would just put me out of my misery. But it usually takes more than a dozen moves. So I don't think Black should be punished if she has to turn on vacation time to win some other games she's playing, just so White can win incompetently on time.

If the Chess Match is hopelessly lost, the proper thing to do is Resign like a Gentleman or a Lady of Quality.  I you can't determine that you have lost, then there is something wrong with your perceptions and analysis of the game. You know when you are beaten. So why fool yourself?