Stalling/quitting games… I just sat here and waited for someone to let the clock run out…

I've had people do this to me in correspondence where they have multiple days to move. In a completely and hopelessly lost position, they would make 1 move a week to try to stall out the game to control their losses and rating losses. It used to annoy the ever living hell out of me, but I got over it. It doesn't happen as much as it used to. 

Why are you playing those chess games when you have days to think and move?  If you like to have a lot of time to think, you can play a 30 minute game.  Taking days to move a few moves in a chess match is an overkill in my opinion and your opponent can stall unreasonably.

hi

i suffer a lot from R against R players...i would be happy if such a players will be marked somehow and i will block them all...

Because I am really busy with work and school and cannot always sit down to play a game.  I would really prefer to play live games but it is not always possible.  Correspondence allows me to play but I can make my move whenever time allows.

That's delusional. I never met anyone complaining about not being able to finish with checkmate or claiming that it is the crime of the century, I am sure there are a couple of really rare exceptions out there but that's clearly not the case. You are both rated high enough to be able to spot an obvious mate in one. The common complaint is that people will stall out of spite for being in a losing position because they want to feel better about their ego being hurt from being outsmarted on a chess board, so they stall to "punish" their opponent for daring to play better chess than them. Common insecure loser behavior. Typical frustrated coward. Being in a losing position and looking for a resource and complications and tactical shots or even flagging is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from stalling a mate in one. It has nothing to do with satisfaction of delivering mate, maybe that's how you feel when you don't get to deliver mate,  but I assure you that's not how most people feel. People simply want to play some chess for fun, they won that game, everyone playing knows it's checkmate next move no matter what and they have a little bit of time for another game before he has to go back to his daily duties and instead of playing chess and relaxing/having fun they are now stuck watching a clock. Whether you resign or let the person deliver mate is completely irrelevant, but running out the clock when you're premoved to checkmate just to annoy your opponent, that's overcompensation for something and you should use that time you spent stalling in therapy instead of letting the clock run out.

The way the algorithm works is something along this way: the computer notices you're in a completely lost position with absolutely no counterplay and then you burn 90% of your time not even moving your mouse or on a different tab/window. It shows a pop up asking if you're there saying the game will be forfeited and considered an abandonment, you ignore that and keep watching your time run out. What would you expect would happen after you agreed to this when you signed up for chess.com?

And as far as people not complaining about  "I was completely losing, it was mate in one, and then the guy didn't move for 20 minutes and I won on time! That's not fair! He should have won!" .... well 2 things

One: it happens WAY WAY WAAAAAAY LESS OFTEN than the other way around, which makes your comment completely dishonest and non-sense. Aka false dichotomy 

Two: Most people don't even get to that situation because they resign before that happens

And I can't speak for everyone on this last matter but I do think I speak for most people and it is sad when I have an exciting game like a cool attack coming and I sacced something or I neglected my development and king safety to capture a pawn and now I am trying to defend and if I succeed I'll have a better endgame and I don't get to know if my attack/defense would work or not because he disconnected or abandoned or stalled and then I go and look at the computer and I am in a completely lost position and I still get upset that I didn't get to finish trying to attack/defend (whether it would work or not) even though I would likely lose.

I do expect people to use their time, it doesn't change the fact that you're stalling. No one is saying it's forbidden or illegal. It's just poor etiquette/sportsmanship. And very annoying. It's disrespectful. People are just trying to enjoy an activity they like in whatever little free time they have and instead of playing chess they are watching a clock reach zero, but it's fine some people have respect, some people don't. Read my previous post, as I said you're high rated enough to spot an obvious mate in one. And if you're waiting for 8 out of your total 10 minutes when you know for a fact there is absolutely nothing you can do: no counterplay, no chance of flagging, no tactical attempts, no resources of any kind to try and pull at least a draw, no matter what you do, you considered every legal move and still mate in one next move... well then you clearly have issues and you're burning time out of spite, regardless of what you tell yourself and others. And that is the textbook definition of stalling

I've noticed Chess.com has gotten better about making a player lose by abandonment if they take a considerable amount of time contemplating in a clearly losing position, which I appreciate. 

Lol @ changing a diaper which causes person to "accidentally" timeout. That is such nonsense. If you are playing a game, finish it and stop coming up with excuses as to why you coincidentally couldn't finish the game, at the EXACT moment you were losing. 

The fact is, stalling happens all the time and the ones being forced to wait should have some recourse. Ten times worse when it's correspondence.

What is the excuse for making 1 king move a week in a lost position such as queen and king vs king position? 

Yes we should have recourse and chess.com agrees. So there is really no discussion to be had. 

Sometimes if they disconnect, you can report them immediately and it will immediately auto-resign.

My point is that it's not possible to know when someone is stalling or having to attend to a real life situation, etc...therefore making it reportable is nonsensical. 

If they have done it repeatedly, you can make a fair estimation that they are full of it.

Again, that's pushing subjectivity. This isn't aborting games or cheating, where are much more objective and clear. We are talking about pressuring people to move faster for fear of the stalling rule, and I find it ridiculous. 

That is not the case. There is a second clock on how long to make your move. Its totally fair especially in a lost position.  It's not unreasonable to expect your opponent to make his move. 

The real problem is the number of players who take advantage of the good will of others and abuse the rules. Those should be dealt with accordingly. 

Good to know. One game yesterday, the opponent disconnected over ten times. This was baffling so I sent him a message thanking him for the game and asking what happened?

Apparently he was on a train.

Yes, there is a second clock, which again, that clock will tell you when it's stalling when the time runs out and he gets kicked off. I don't think stalling will ever not be subjective. 

This is called sandbagging and it is ban-worthy

That wasn't your point at first but ok... if you study a little bit of basic statistics you'll learn that is possible to estimate with 99% accuracy whether they're stalling or not based on data analysis.... you'd also be surprised how much chess.com have access to your computer it even knows when you're changing tabs so if you're  watching cats on youtube instead of making your move chess.com knows you're stalling)

And once again how is it pressuring people to move faster when they KNOW it's mate in one?

Let me draw for you to make it simpler. 

Here is another one:

How about 

Since i was 700 rated I knew that these were unstoppable mates just by glancing at the board. 

Magnus Carlsen, stockfish, alphazero, you, me, my little cousin, every alien in the universe, Bobby Fischer's ghost, anyone on this website or even Caissa herself couldn't make these games last 2 moves and pretty much anyone above 1000 rating points know this so don't give me the excuse that you need 10 minutes to realize that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop check-mate. Don't you find a little too coincidental that it is always in positions like these that they suddenly have to change a diaper?  Give me a break....

If your baby needs changing or someone rings your doorbell it takes less than 2 seconds to resign or make a move or at the very least have the courtesy of typing in the chat, so do us all a favor and stop trying to justify the unjustifiable and just come clean that you're a terrible sportsman who enjoys stalling for god knows what reason and we can call it a day =]

I don't know if it would qualify as a huge issue, but it is an issue nevertheless. And if criticizing terrible sportsmanship by shi.tty people is a character flaw you need to seriously reevaluate your criteria.

Most people are not shocked when people stall. They're annoyed. When Kasparov rage quit after losing he wasn't wasting a hard-working citizen's leisure time, people there at the venue were getting paid.  When Johnny Mac succumbed to pressure (which is a lot more in a professional tennis match than online chess) and threw his tantrums he didn't hurt his opponent, nor the tantrum itself stopped his opponent from advancing to next round, nor did the ump get fired or whatever. Everyone there was getting paid, except for the crowd, whose vast majority had a blast and loved watching him throw tantrums. Bad sports? Yes, but completely different context.

And still they were punished for being badsports in some form or another (or at least should have been), so why shouldn't people here be as well? For those and many other reasons the stalling report is not only welcomed but extremely necessary