Long move timer

Most of us who play extensively online have probably run into the long move timer - an obscure rule that stipulates you can suddenly lose a game if you take too much time on any of the first 10 moves of a game.

Reading along other threads two things become apparent:

- very few people actually know about the long move timer 

- most people tend to find it incredibly annoying (although admittedly those who don't will probably not take to the fora). 

I believe a mature discussion on the merits of the long move timer, and the way it is implemented, is long overdue. 

My personal view is that this rule in itself is too harsh. It is inherent part of a timed chess game to be able to choose freely how and when you devote your allotted time.  In the rare case a game is indeed abandoned you will lose at most a few minutes of your life (given a typical blitz game) and have the option to block your opponent afterwards. 

I feel stronger about the way the rule is implemented. First, chess.com should consider providing a clear warning to a player who is about the lose game due the long move timer rule (and perhaps give an option to click "yes, I am still present").  Advertising this rule will also help to avoid that those who lose a game due to this rule take out their ire on their opponent (who, if I understand correctly, plays no part in this). Second, chess.com could consider applying this rule only to certain rating categories. I suspect this issue of "game abandonment" is more common among the lower-end rating levels. In the 1000s of games I have played I believe I have never suspected a player to willfully abandon a game (perhaps I'm lucky).  

I'm happy to hear other people's views and reflections.

You have to use over half the time control on one move in the first 10 moves to trigger it. I would guess that isn't very common and generally speaking, people that wait that long on a move that early, likely are trying to trick their opponent into thinking they are going to time out.

I totally agree with you. 

I am not in favour of the current implementation of this. It feels like thinking has been abolished. I recommend at least change the implementation of this.

Over half your time for a single move during the first 10 moves is dumb. If you're that fking confused just resign.

Get over it.

Taking that much time early in the game certainly is not normal. The implementation of said policy is reasonable enough. It prevents the shenanigans of unethical play. By example: a 10 minute game and the 2nd player (an expert bullet player) wants to game his opponents and takes 8 minutes at move 4. Just to “mess with his opponents”. What 1st player would appreciate or tolerate such? 
That being said.... there are those rare occasions where a doorbell might ring or nature makes a call and the player just might have left due to a temporary  minor emergency. The natural inclination is to think your opponent is off checking an engine - but not necessarily true. I have a few health issues and sometimes temporarily disappear before a move is to be made (in 10 min). Opponents make a bad move with one obvious reply - which is not made till a minute or two has elapsed. Point being - you can’t automatically assume the worst.... unless it’s a habit of course.

Many would argue chess is also a psychological game where messing with your opponent's mind is perfectly legitimate. But that's not even the point. If you feel your opponent is playing to slowly or intentionally disconnecting, just block that person and prevent a second encounter. The thing is that the current rules take away the perfectly reasonable choice of a chess player to take a lot of time in the opening (and do not even warn a player that this might happen).

Contrary to the - slightly rude and uneducated - opinion of llama47, there are many positions where taking a lot of times is warranted. Let me illustrate by giving an example of the last time I lost because of the long move timer. Playing with black pieces, after 1.e4 d6. 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nc3 c5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. e5 Ng4 8. e6 fxe6 9. Ng5, I lost. This positon is an extremely sharp line in which GM's are known to blunder and which includes unique forced draw lines like (9.. Bxb5 10. Nxe6 Bxd4 11. Nxd8 Bf2+ 12. Kd2 Be3+ with repetition after 13. Ke1). I wasn't acquainted with this line when I first played it so I had the choice between taking a few minutes (a LOT in a blitz match, I admit) or making a move on instinct and taking a huge risk that I will  basically lose by force against someone who does know the theory of this opening.

This timer is my downfall. I literally lose so much because of it, even when I'm totally stomping my opponents. And I'm pretty sure it can be hacked because I remember this one guy held his piece in place to keep me from gaining the upper hand and he still won even though he wasn't on time.

That isn't something that happens. The two clients never direct connect, so your opponent can't impact your client or connection.

I don't think that you should spend most of your time on the first 10 moves. It seems kind of suspicious, and ultimately like a bad strategy, and most people blitz out their first 3-7 moves out anyway.

Ok, but I know for sure that once my opponent hacked my wifi and used 5G to get my girlfriend pregnant.

One thing we can never accuse llama of being -

that of being witty !

It sounds like deep down you really wish that were true.

Well, it did happen.

BadBishop, let me make a couple of points:

 - If you believe chess should not be considered a psychological game at all, you should be against GM's like Hikaru who play the bongcloud opening to put psychological pressure on an opponent. Accepting a time deficit to 'pressurize' your opponent is the same thing (although I would happily invite this kind of 'pressure'). You are right it is a relevant point, because it would be a legitimate defense of not having the long move timer (just note that I do not consider 'trash talk' to be part of that, that's just rude).

- the main point though is that there are alternative ways to express your displeasure, namely blocking this person. I do that occasionally with players who indeed make inappropriate comments during a game. Stopping the game with long move timer does exactly what you intend to prevent - it disallows some players who take more time to move to enjoy their game.

- ask anyone whose job it is to to come up with rules and they will say one principle that always applies is that rules should be transparant. The long move timer is not transparant. There is no warning up front, there is no explanation afterwards. You simply lose and do not know what happened unless you really dedicate time to finding out. That's not how rules are supposed to work.

Does not a warning appear- auto-abort in so many seconds? When an opponent begins to take an inordinate amount of time- I alway see a pop- up making notice. Also- on my move I view a warning. I do agree - the policy could be more transparent. But it is stated on back pages. You’ve suggested not many player are aware - but they quickly learn after a time or two.

Personally I think everyone should be free to manage his time without restriction. The fact that someone misbehave is not an excuse to limit the freedom of people in chess as in the society. People who misbehave should be punished without mercy, and at the same time the rights of everyone should be granted even at the cost of someone taking advantage of it. Otherwise it would like making alcool illegal for everyone because someone sell it to some underage people.

But I think there is maybe a way to make both point of view quite happy by choosing a solution more flexible.

Since it seems true that it's necessary to both let people think as much as they want and at the same time it is necessary to prevent people wasting other people time by taking to much time at the beginning, maybe it will be appropriate to modulate the "long move timer" rule by the level of the player and the difficulty of the position. I mean that the rule "long move time" should set a limit of time if the position it's obvious and at the same time the level of the player is high enough that it is considered not possible that he doesn't know what to play in an opening position that is simple. If the position is difficult or not very common, the player should be allowed to use more time. If the player has a low ELO also he should be allowed to use more time. There are games that were played by very high level player in important tournaments in which some players spent a lot of time on some initial move because the position was new and they didn't prepared it before. This is a perfect example of how important is to allow a free use of time by the players. 

Strongly disagree. Why so ?

I start a friendly 10 minute game and after a few moves the opponent wants to “game the clock” by letting 8 minutes run off at move 3. 
Is this a friendly game? Player’s naturally wonder if a disconnect has happened. 
No. This is not why players seek a game- an be forced to tolerate unsportsmanlike behavior- the players who play to win at any expense or cost. These type are not interested in a friendly game but solely in ratings. 
Players are afforded 5 minutes to make any move within the 1st 10 minutes. Completely fair and reasonable.

I see your point. But at the same time I think we have also to consider the frequency at what this even occur. If the frequency of this type of behave is low, it's perhaps the cost of time constraints too much compered to the benefit?