Good idea! --- unless the popup distracts the player who is thinking resulting in them having to recalculate from scratch..
Letting time run out vs resigning
Sort:
What I do is open a second browser window, while keeping an eye on the game (in case the guy makes a move with a few seconds left), and I watch a MatoJelic video on youtube! They are only about 5 minutes each and it passes the time and I learn about chess at the same time. Cheers
Its not a server problem, its a behavior issue. Time must be allowed to run down even if its 1 second left. People who can't see a no-win scanario have more problems in life than chess.
melvinbluestone wrote:
I agree with a portion of your post. If someone has to answer the doorbell or take care of something else, then that is certainly allowable. However, if he is really leaving because he realizes that his position is hopeless, he should resign. That is the polite and ethical thing to do. I think it is very difficult to discern between the two situations without interrogating the player, as it really is a matter of intent. However, if the player consistently times out in lost positions without ever resiging,that at least provides circumstantial evidence of bad intent.
beardogjones wrote:
If the person is in a losing position, how do we know they are skilled enough
to know that they are ina losing position?
Check and double-check! to this ridiculous argument. The point is this: When I play a ten minute game, for example, I do so with the understanding that my opponent has ten minutes to make his moves. He may get mated or resign, and in that case use less than ten minutes. Or he may use the entire ten minutes. I know this going in. He may make 30 moves in ten minutes, or he may make 15, or 5 or 3. He may have spent the last month studying the Morphy Defense in the Lopez and I hit 'em with 3...g6!? So he may take a long time on his fourth move, or any move. I enter into a TEN MINUTE game with the understanding my opponent has TEN minutes to make his moves. How he alots his time, or how many moves he makes in that time period, is his business. He's got ten minutes. If he has to take a phone call, or see his wife off to work during the game, that's his business. If he gets fed up, and walks away, he has that right. When his clock runs out, I get the win. What's the problem? That's the game. Why is chess.com trying to "devine" the other player's state of mind and pass a judgement on it? So my opponent gets disgusted and abandons the game. I get the win. If you don't like waiting for your opponent, whatever he's doing, don't play!
InstantChess does it better.
Mar 18, 2014
0
#87
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Its not a server problem, its a behavior issue. Time must be allowed to run down even if its 1 second left. People who can't see a no-win scanario have more problems in life than chess.
Did anyone ever say anywhere that it's a server problem? I suggested a server modification that could help ameliorate the behavior issue, but never said it's a server problem. 
As for "time must be allowed to run down even if its [sic] 1 second left"-- if there were only one second left in a game, this problem doesn't exist there. The problem is when there is a lot of time left; I think you misunderstand the subject of this thread. And "time MUST be allowed to run down?" That's your opinion. Sure, thats the rule for OTB games where there's money and USCF ratings on the line, but it's poor sportsmanship to abandon a game in a clearly lost position.
If chess.com wishes to foster a friendly, respectful community where people enjoy playing chess, it seems that this is the sort of thing the admins would wish to combat.
Aug 30, 2014
0
#88
decency people, just plain common courtesy and decency. if your goal is to waste another person's time, you are a sad human being.
Sep 19, 2014
0
#89
I started a game with an opponent. Theywere white, then the logged off after submitting the seek. Then the clock ran out, I was surprised sinceI didn't get credit for the win, so it appears unlike live chess there is no rating adjustment if no movesare layed? I prefer that, since I believe my live rating is bloated due to two of my games the person disconnecting ater the game started.
There are many sad people in life, a free site is gold for them, get on with it ...
jerseyjack wrote:
On live chess, why do some players who find themselves down on pieces or position or both let time run with no moves vs resigning?
Letting the time run out gives people an out, its like saying i didnt quit, i lost on time. It happens, take the win and move on.
We need a move clock. I play 30 minute games and on other chess sites they have a 5 min move clock. If you don't make a move in 5 minutes you are auto-resigned. There is a move clock dislayed with the gme clock and it changes color when you have 90 seconds left, to alert you. It is a very fair and much less frustrating way to play.
mcgilvra wrote:
We need a move clock. I play 30 minute games and on other chess sites they have a 5 min move clock. If you don't make a move in 5 minutes you are auto-resigned. There is a move clock dislayed with the gme clock and it changes color when you have 90 seconds left, to alert you. It is a very fair and much less frustrating way to play.
You might be right, but i think this is not also very correct. Maybe they should add the move clock possibility as a new game category or sth , for people who are very frustrated about afker's .
I will not play on chess.com if we don't get a move clock soon. If we get a move clock I will gladly upgrade to premium. But I will not pay to play on a site that allows bums to waste my time.
Apr 10, 2015
0
#95
whmeh0 wrote:
It seems to me that there must be some server modification that could help ameliorate this problem. I have an idea:
If a player makes no moves for a significant period of time, then there could be a popup that asks if he's still playing/thinking. If he doesn't click "yes" within a reasonable amount of time, then he forfeits the game automatically. There could be a threshold for amount of material disadvantage; say, the server only asks inactive players who are down 3 points of material or more.
The appropriate period of idle time could be a little tricky to nail down. A set period of time might work, but the idle time could be scaled (perhaps non-linearly) based on how much time the player had on the clock when their turn started. If a player clicks "yes" to indicate that he is indeed still playing, but never makes a move, that player would obviously be flagged by the server.
Thoughts?
+1, a step in the right direction for sure. A move clock itself changes the game, but the idleness alert seems much better. I'm sure the poorest of sports would still do something childish like wait for the alert and then make a move and keep doing that until time is up, but a positive step nonetheless.
mcgilvra wrote:
We need a move clock. I play 30 minute games and on other chess sites they have a 5 min move clock. If you don't make a move in 5 minutes you are auto-resigned. There is a move clock dislayed with the gme clock and it changes color when you have 90 seconds left, to alert you. It is a very fair and much less frustrating way to play.
Why should anyone be forced to make a move within a certain time period? You sign up to play a 30 minute game, your opponent has a right to use his time as they see fit. You dont have rediculous rules like this in OTB play, so why in online play?
Should Holt get penalized a loss because he took 50 minutes to make a move?
I'm trying to get better as a player and almost always play 30 minute games because I tend to blunder a lot. This is what happened today:
mzg2001: Hmmm...
mzg2001: You know what???
mzg2001: You wait too long for me
mzg2001: Now let's wait my entire 20 minutes together
mzg2001: So, additional 25+ minutes of waiting
Classy.
Rossmeister, just in case, wanted to let you know mzg2001 is not me. I would not make comments like that.
Move clocks do change the game and they should be an option, i.e., you can choose an x minute move clock and only match up to players who have opted to play with a move clock.
This is online chess, not tournament chess. We all have lives to live and it's really hard to save the world when your sitting in front screen that never moves.
+1 for Mattymar's idea of a "presence check". May be better than a move clock since it does not change the game. At least the afker would have to return periodically.
Keep it simple though, no weighing material differences, just pop-up an alert after 5 minutes of inactivity then give them one minute to respond. And let the other player know they have responded.
I_Am_Second wrote:
mcgilvra wrote:
We need a move clock. I play 30 minute games and on other chess sites they have a 5 min move clock. If you don't make a move in 5 minutes you are auto-resigned. There is a move clock dislayed with the gme clock and it changes color when you have 90 seconds left, to alert you. It is a very fair and much less frustrating way to play.
Why should anyone be forced to make a move within a certain time period? You sign up to play a 30 minute game, your opponent has a right to use his time as they see fit. You dont have rediculous rules like this in OTB play, so why in online play?
Should Holt get penalized a loss because he took 50 minutes to make a move?
We don't have rules like this in OTB play because, in general, we don't have ridiculous BEHAVIOR like this in OTB play. In a 30 minute game, in person against a live opponent and in front of live spectators, who is going to let the clock run out and force their opponent to wait in a clearly lost position?
In online play, this social pressure to not be a jerk is not there. Chess.com, as a privately run business, is thus choosing to take steps to discourage people from being jerks. Good for them.
It seems to me that there must be some server modification that could help ameliorate this problem. I have an idea:
If a player makes no moves for a significant period of time, then there could be a popup that asks if he's still playing/thinking. If he doesn't click "yes" within a reasonable amount of time, then he forfeits the game automatically. There could be a threshold for amount of material disadvantage; say, the server only asks inactive players who are down 3 points of material or more.
The appropriate period of idle time could be a little tricky to nail down. A set period of time might work, but the idle time could be scaled (perhaps non-linearly) based on how much time the player had on the clock when their turn started. If a player clicks "yes" to indicate that he is indeed still playing, but never makes a move, that player would obviously be flagged by the server.
Thoughts?