Letting time run out vs resigning

 And I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. I don't like "bad apples" in chess (or my diet, for that matter). I'm not condoning the behavior of players who actually walk away from a game and let the clock run out. It's rude and unsporting, and of course they should just resign. But that is not the issue I am addressing here. The issue is whether or not a chess website should attempt to regulate a player's conduct based on a perceived intention derived from the actual game itself....

 Listen to yourselves! Actually defending this ridiculous idea, that the software can devine what's going on in a player's mind and then, insult to injury, pass judgement on it. IMDeviate is right: the site owners have the right to use such a system. Their purpose is to attract and maintain membership. If enough users complain because they had to suffer the "hardship" of waiting for their opponent to use all his alotted time, it's understandable they would try a way to streamline the experience. But that doesn't make it right. These people who are complaining don't seem to understand the concept of a "clock" game. Their arguments are absurd: "My opponent didn't resign when I wanted him to, so he's a jerk." Who's the bad sport there? Imagine defending this idea in some other kind of competition........ It's the bottom of the ninth, the score is 25-0 with two outs. Is the team that's batting "rude and unsporting" because they don't concede the game and walk off the field? If the next batter gets two strikes and then hits a string of foul balls, is he a "jerk" for not striking out faster and ending the game so everybody can go home? I've seen basketball games where one team is ahead by 25 or 30 points with a couple of minutes left on the clock. I've never seen them arbitrarily stop the clock and call it quits. I especially like the sentiment some posters expressed: "I have better things to do than wait for some jerk to let his clock run down because he has a losing position...." Well, then go do those other things and don't get involved in a chess game you obviously don't have time for. Remember what Donald Byrne said after his "game of the century" with Fischer? "At the very moment when I resigned, most of the players in the room believed I  had a won game!"

People time out their games in online chess, where the time controls can be many days per move and you blokes are complaining about people timing out in speed chess. When you win a game, are you not happy to win ?  Or do you just habitually complain for the sake of having something to complain about ?

kco needs to go easy on the Foster's.

People familiar with chess and/or technology know I'm right.

As of today's date, no software on this planet can detect the intent of a player...especially not half way around the world. The "fair play policy" is based on parameters set by chess.com. That's great, if the parameters make sense then most of the time they will ensnare only poor sports.

Problem is, as I've said before, the parameters will also capture normal chess behavior, effectively changing the rules of chess. Dumb.

Ooops - my clock just ran out in a 1 minute game and I'm a piece down but I had mate on my next move. I've been flagged.

Like I said, BS.

There's another important point to be made here, and it may be why some players are supporting chess.com's mind-reading software (aka the"fair-play policy"). I've played many games where I've gone up a piece or two early on, even a queen, and got annoyed when my opponent didn't resign. But then, somehow, I managed to get in trouble, and occasionally, even lost the game. Sometimes I just made blunders, but sometimes I just misjudged the position. My "annoying, obviously lost" opponent got the win. As the saying goes, it's not over 'til it's over. Is it possible these people supporting this policy just don't want to do the work and convert their "overwhelming advantage" to a win? They don't want to run the risk of blowing a "won" game.

Nobody knows for sure what parameters are being used, but yes you can get flagged for timing out.

I know that, I said "You aren't flagged just for timing out.", as in "The sole reason for being flagged is not timing out."

And since nobody knows for sure what parameters or even what data is being looked at...(for example you'd think the clock AND position on the board would be relevant compared with the level of each player, rather than just the clock) I'm not sure how you can say it hasn't caught honest users.

I'm just guessing here, but I don't think chess.com takes the board position into account because of the reasons you mentioned. I think they look at the ratio of time spent on the last move before timing out vs. total alloted game time, but again, I'm just guessing.

When people professing innocence gripe in the forums about being sanctioned, how do you know 100% of them are lying?

Probably some of them are...but all of them?

Most forum posts about fair play seem to be because of bad/laggy internet connections, and remember that you have to get flagged many times before you have restrictions applied. I've violated the fair play policy two or three times, for what I think are good reasons, but this isn't enough to get restricted. Honest users shouldn't get flagged more than 2-3 times per 50 games. (50 is just an arbitrarily chosen number that seems reasonable to me). What I'm trying to say is that very very few, if any, honest users will get restricted.

I raised that same possibility in multiple prior posts.

Players who think they are winning but don't know how to convert will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.

Players who think they are winning but they're really not, will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.

Players who think they are winning and might be winning but don't have enough time left on the clock will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.

I could go on...but this possibilities are so basic I just don't get why people still complain when they should be out there winning games. If they were really winning that is.