I hate when this happens. My worst experience I had with this was on lichess. I was playing 2/1 bullet and had a forced mate. My opponent waited the 1 and a half minutes for the clock to run out. It was an anonymous game too. There was no shame in losing.
Time stalling at mate in 1.
Sort:
RestedPawn wrote:
Forgive me, community, if this has been discussed here. I'm not on the forums much, I just come to play But I find that the most frequent time that someone will let their clock tick down to zero and abandon a game is when they are subject to a mate in 1 or mate in 2. I play 2 minute blitz and I get people who will have 40+ seconds on their clock and I get them to a forced mate and they rage-stall.
I know that chess.com does indeed have a "check' for players who abandon their game, but I was thinking, this check could be greatly enhanced (if it isn't already) by also checking to see if the person who left their game was in a forced mate situation. This would indicate (logically) a far greater probability of being an intentional poor sport.
Quitting a game could mean someone just lost connection....but if they quit games when they are in very particular, pre-defined situations (like mate in 1 or 2), then it's obvious these guys are poor sports. Maybe chess.com is doing this already? I don't know.
Well, it's sad, but it happens on a regular basis.
This is at least better than players who run down all the clock until 2 seconds left before making a move, hoping their opponents have forgotten about the game.
Get a grip. If you commit to a 2 minute game then you have 2 minutes available. If your opponent spends that time hoping for a miracle, or hoping you will disconnect, or hoping you will misclick and force a stalemate, let them. We aren't talking hours here, we're talking seconds.
In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost (also known as retrospective cost) is a cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered.[1][2][3] Sunk costs are contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be avoided if action is taken.[4] In other words, a sunk cost is a sum paid in the past that is no longer relevant to decisions about the future.[3]
Aug 8, 2019
0
#6
I dislike this as well. Whenever I see there is a mate in 1, I just premove it and chill. I guess some people are not educated with the terms and policies. Like once I made an account for my uncle in lichess and he is good at chess but not good at online stuffs. He used to leave whenever he was losing. When I came to know of that, I taught him the rules and how it can result in a ban or It's not considered good sportmanship. He used to treat it as if he was playing against an AI. That's why he never cared much cuz he is used to real life coffee chess with trash talking and having fun. After I educated him, he stopped doing that. So my point is that some of them are not well known with the site rules. They just came here to play. Nonetheless, I am not promoting this idea. Just trying to explain their possible perspectives..
Nov 17, 2019
0
#8
gambitfan wrote:
Stalling is even worse in daily games ! I am experiencing it right now with this game : https://www.chess.com/daily/game/240912510
The game was clearly won by me 6 days ago, but my opponent who had played pretty quickly up to then stopped playing. Since this is a 7 day game, it may last days, and even weeks...
+1 One main reason I don't like daily chess. As long as OTB classical games are, I can at least see that my opponent is either in deep thought - or left the room.
Nov 17, 2019
0
#9
If someone let their clock tick down 40 minutes in a 45 minute game then sure, but to complain about it in a 2 minute game is ridiculous. You agree to spare 4 minutes of your time when you start a 2 minute game so what your opponent does with that time is not really relevant. You win in the end anyway.
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
Get a grip. If you commit to a 2 minute game then you have 2 minutes available. If your opponent spends that time hoping for a miracle, or hoping you will disconnect, or hoping you will misclick and force a stalemate, let them. We aren't talking hours here, we're talking seconds.
Sure, but it seems reasonable to add to a poor sport algorithm and increased probability of being a poor sport when stalls happen during forcing losing sequences, wouldn't you think?
Jan 2, 2020
0
#11
And it probably does, but who really cares? I'm unlikely to play that opponent again anyway if I face someone who does this so frankly whatever punishment they may face is irrelevant to me.
Jan 2, 2020
0
#12
It's just levels of accepting defeat - how many times have you been inevitably winning and the opponent resigns 1 move away from forced mate? Of course he saw this coming 5 moves ago, but it's hard to accept.
Jun 11, 2021
0
#13
I literally just played someone where I had mate in 1, and he/she wrote in the chat "you're going to have to wait this one out lol" - very infuriating...
Forgive me, community, if this has been discussed here. I'm not on the forums much, I just come to play
But I find that the most frequent time that someone will let their clock tick down to zero and abandon a game is when they are subject to a mate in 1 or mate in 2. I play 2 minute blitz and I get people who will have 40+ seconds on their clock and I get them to a forced mate and they rage-stall.
I know that chess.com does indeed have a "check' for players who abandon their game, but I was thinking, this check could be greatly enhanced (if it isn't already) by also checking to see if the person who left their game was in a forced mate situation. This would indicate (logically) a far greater probability of being an intentional poor sport.
Quitting a game could mean someone just lost connection....but if they quit games when they are in very particular, pre-defined situations (like mate in 1 or 2), then it's obvious these guys are poor sports. Maybe chess.com is doing this already? I don't know.