Is it because too many games have already been played with no increment/delay? To me, it seems logical to have a 2 second delay even in a bullet game.
I think it's kinda silly when its down to :10 on both sides and the name of the game is move "as fast as possible". I think it's kinda ridiculous to see pieces falling all over the board, players touching pieces before its their time to move, players hands crashing into each over OTB or OTClock.
I mean, if there was a mandatory 2 second delay, the game would look a lot more civilized...
One of the first games I played on Chess.com was completely drawn with no chance of either side winning or losing. Unfortunately for me I had less time on the clock and my opponent refused to accept a draw. If I had a 10 second increment then I would only have had to continue moving a piece until one of us gave out.
Chess.com should have a computer analyze positions and declare a draw in such positions.
Is it because too many games have already been played with no increment/delay? To me, it seems logical to have a 2 second delay even in a bullet game.
I think it's kinda silly when its down to :10 on both sides and the name of the game is move "as fast as possible". I think it's kinda ridiculous to see pieces falling all over the board, players touching pieces before its their time to move, players hands crashing into each over OTB or OTClock.
I mean, if there was a mandatory 2 second delay, the game would look a lot more civilized...