Stalling in Daily Chess.

Sort:
ChrisA1960

One recent opponent has been on vacation in our daily game but at the same time playing blitz and bullet games. I suggest that anytime a player signs on, their vacation time switches off. This would at least stop some of the abuse of vacation time.

Antonin1957
ScroogeMcBird wrote:
Laph1 wrote:

@ScroogeMcBird

Except what Antonin1957 mentions is kind of what we're talking about too. You seem to claim that the discussion is only about people who refuse to resign in a completely lost position where both players are aware of the fact, when it isn't. OP started the discussion to get some insight into why people take so long to move in general. Sure, the thread was resurrected by AdamMtl2021 in frustration over a few games he deems completely lost but calling someone out, with terms such as "whitewashing" or "strawmen" seems a bit silly, don't you think?

Now, about positions that are completely lost; I can come up with a few reasons why people play on, although I'm mostly reiterating what others have said already:

  • Both players may not be aware of the fact that it is a completely lost position
  • Even where both players would agree that either side is clearly losing, there could still be something to play for. It is no reason to give up just because you are down material. While refraining from making any more specific comments about AdamMtl2021's ongoing games (and I suggest you do the same as Chess.com could count that as cheating), I can safely say that there are games where I would continue to play as his opponent.
  • Even in a lost position you could be able to lure your opponent into a stalemate
  • People may have a schedule where they only visit Chess.com, or at least only consider their daily games, at certain times (say, every other day)
  • While not having any direct emergencies, people may be otherwise busy and that one almost lost game on Chess.com may not be their top priority

Even in the case of clear stalling, the question of a completely lost position is hard to determine, as a chess engine will deem it lost long before a human does. The question then becomes when should Chess.com automatically cut off a game and declare one a winner and the other a staller? The answer is never. In doing so we would try to solve with code what is essentially a social problem.

Also, maybe I'm the odd one out but I have far more times won by timeout in cases where my opponent likes to "take their time", than been frustrated about stalling.

I do agree with you about emergencies though. No one who is going through a "rough patch" will be worrying about signing in to Chess.com to make a move at the absolute last minute.

Your argument doesn't make any sense, insofar as it attempts to justify players who are intentionally stalling games.

It is not impossible for players to engage in intentional stalling, and whataboutisms are entirely unhelpful if you're genuinely interested in finding a resolution to a problem that bothers an awful lot of users.

I don't think you have any genuine interest in resolving anything here, it seems as though you want discussion to stop completely, and for absolutely zero resolution to be arrived upon by anybody involved in this thread.

Stalling is a huge problem; it's flagrant, obvious, and should be something we can easily report. Many people didn't know there was an option to pick opponents with average move times, as just one example. This simple feature greatly improves the quality of life for everyone using this site.

Let's be very clear: People are playing rated, competitive games. They want a resolution to a problem they think is serious. The mainstreaming of unsportsmanlike behavior is entirely unacceptable to me. These people need to play casual games. We should not have tournaments that last three years. I couldn't care less that there's a 1 in 500,000 chance of a draw. That's not fun. People are here to play chess and have fun; people who stall for 14 days a move *the moment they hang a queen* are absolutely ruinous for this site. 

Stop making excuses for these people. They're literally playing all their other games, and for some reason, the debate lords in this thread have realized that they need to ignore that very salient fact to keep their argument going.

Just... stop ignoring the facts. This is flagrant and abusive behavior. It needs to be stopped. How do we stop it?

When you use phrases like "debate lords" you sound like exactly that--a "debate lord." When I responded to your concerns over game stalling with my own polite explanation for why some people including me might play more slowly than our opponents would like, you became increasingly argumentative and emotional. I'm not sure why. But, this is the internet, so my response to this endlessly swirling tempest in a teapot will be to just stop following this thread and leave you to it.

If the problem of game stalling bothers you so much I suggest you bring it up with chess.com support. Maybe they can help. Asking "how do we stop it?" here is not going to help.

Or perhaps the answer would be to find a club with decent people in it, and mostly play them. There are many, many trolls and immature people on chess.com, but there are also some nice people who are actually interested in chess. It would be well worth your while to seek them out and enjoy this beautiful game with them.

Goodbye.

Pulpofeira

I agree with Scrooge, but I personally don't care. They stall, I win, everybody's happy.

JJRSChess
Stalling in all modes is unforgivable.
JJRSChess
Stalling is the most annoying thing about this game. Losing is more desirable when the intention is just to learn.
ScroogeMcBird
Antonin1957 wrote:
ScroogeMcBird wrote:
Laph1 wrote:

@ScroogeMcBird

Except what Antonin1957 mentions is kind of what we're talking about too. You seem to claim that the discussion is only about people who refuse to resign in a completely lost position where both players are aware of the fact, when it isn't. OP started the discussion to get some insight into why people take so long to move in general. Sure, the thread was resurrected by AdamMtl2021 in frustration over a few games he deems completely lost but calling someone out, with terms such as "whitewashing" or "strawmen" seems a bit silly, don't you think?

Now, about positions that are completely lost; I can come up with a few reasons why people play on, although I'm mostly reiterating what others have said already:

  • Both players may not be aware of the fact that it is a completely lost position
  • Even where both players would agree that either side is clearly losing, there could still be something to play for. It is no reason to give up just because you are down material. While refraining from making any more specific comments about AdamMtl2021's ongoing games (and I suggest you do the same as Chess.com could count that as cheating), I can safely say that there are games where I would continue to play as his opponent.
  • Even in a lost position you could be able to lure your opponent into a stalemate
  • People may have a schedule where they only visit Chess.com, or at least only consider their daily games, at certain times (say, every other day)
  • While not having any direct emergencies, people may be otherwise busy and that one almost lost game on Chess.com may not be their top priority

Even in the case of clear stalling, the question of a completely lost position is hard to determine, as a chess engine will deem it lost long before a human does. The question then becomes when should Chess.com automatically cut off a game and declare one a winner and the other a staller? The answer is never. In doing so we would try to solve with code what is essentially a social problem.

Also, maybe I'm the odd one out but I have far more times won by timeout in cases where my opponent likes to "take their time", than been frustrated about stalling.

I do agree with you about emergencies though. No one who is going through a "rough patch" will be worrying about signing in to Chess.com to make a move at the absolute last minute.

Your argument doesn't make any sense, insofar as it attempts to justify players who are intentionally stalling games.

It is not impossible for players to engage in intentional stalling, and whataboutisms are entirely unhelpful if you're genuinely interested in finding a resolution to a problem that bothers an awful lot of users.

I don't think you have any genuine interest in resolving anything here, it seems as though you want discussion to stop completely, and for absolutely zero resolution to be arrived upon by anybody involved in this thread.

Stalling is a huge problem; it's flagrant, obvious, and should be something we can easily report. Many people didn't know there was an option to pick opponents with average move times, as just one example. This simple feature greatly improves the quality of life for everyone using this site.

Let's be very clear: People are playing rated, competitive games. They want a resolution to a problem they think is serious. The mainstreaming of unsportsmanlike behavior is entirely unacceptable to me. These people need to play casual games. We should not have tournaments that last three years. I couldn't care less that there's a 1 in 500,000 chance of a draw. That's not fun. People are here to play chess and have fun; people who stall for 14 days a move *the moment they hang a queen* are absolutely ruinous for this site. 

Stop making excuses for these people. They're literally playing all their other games, and for some reason, the debate lords in this thread have realized that they need to ignore that very salient fact to keep their argument going.

Just... stop ignoring the facts. This is flagrant and abusive behavior. It needs to be stopped. How do we stop it?

When you use phrases like "debate lords" you sound like exactly that--a "debate lord." When I responded to your concerns over game stalling with my own polite explanation for why some people including me might play more slowly than our opponents would like, you became increasingly argumentative and emotional. I'm not sure why. But, this is the internet, so my response to this endlessly swirling tempest in a teapot will be to just stop following this thread and leave you to it.

If the problem of game stalling bothers you so much I suggest you bring it up with chess.com support. Maybe they can help. Asking "how do we stop it?" here is not going to help.

Or perhaps the answer would be to find a club with decent people in it, and mostly play them. There are many, many trolls and immature people on chess.com, but there are also some nice people who are actually interested in chess. It would be well worth your while to seek them out and enjoy this beautiful game with them.

Goodbye.

Nah, stalling in chess is bad no matter how many times you try to defend it, because you're wrong each time. When people are giving you the literal definition of bad sportsmanship and you're telling them to go pound sand, you're the one in the wrong.

If you want to say goodbye, delete your account.

7zx

Stalling is bad in live games because you have to sit and wait for the opponent to move.

In a daily game you've literally agreed to let them stall as much as they want to. When it's the other person's move you can just forget about it and go and do something else.

7kenzo

like jordan 1993