I have one acroynm to say to you, just one Acroynm: FICS!
Leaving the time running instead of resigning
Sort:
Oldest
To be honest with you, I don't consider it to be such a problem either. It's happened to me-once or twice.
If you can't entertain yourself differently for ten minutes, that might be a different problem altogether. Try solving chess puzzles while you wait.
In the end, it's just ten minutes. And there's not much of a solution-how would you determine which cases are abandoners? This is extremely poor sportsmanship, but it's not against the rules, because it would not be possible to objectively identify.
What else sucks is when you go on Chess.com and read an article because of some time-sucking sore loser. You go back every couple of minutes. On the 3rd minute it says you lost because the game was abandoned. It wasn't even your turn! Why can't a player leave the game to do other things when it's not their turn? The other side is lost but the player is a sore loser! You should be able to leave and come back every so other often when they sit like that! They do this in regular tournaments when the clock isn't ticking.
You really can't moderate this stuff. If its such an issue play games with a tighter time limit, or do something else in a different tab, or eat sandwich.
It's annoying, but until you can suggest a reasonable solution, the current set up is the best available. Giving players powers to force their opponent to either speed up or the ability to force an end with a decision either way is too abusable, and defeats the purpose of including clocks and time limits.
fgm351 wrote:
I have one acroynm to say to you, just one Acroynm: FICS!
Please explain.
There are a few things that could be done:
Implement an additional time-per-move control that would be a supplement to the time-per-game control (I've seen this on another site). Exceed your time per move, and you lose the game.
Implement a "ping" mechanism that makes itself available to the waiting player after, say, 10% of the game's time has elapsed without a move. It would allow you to send a non-obtrusive "are you there?" query to the player who's turn it is and they would have to either respond by clicking a button or by making their move. Failure to do so could result in either game adjournment, or forfeiture.
Provide statistics such as timeout %, and maybe something like the average time for all of the the moves on which they timed out so that you can more easily identify and avoid these players.
Provide a feedback mechanism that is provided by each player's opponents and is reported on as a part of a player's stats so that you might more easily avoid these players, and also to serve as the basis for any punitive action by the site.
TheGrobe wrote:
There are a few things that could be done:
Implement an additional time-per-move control that would be a supplement to the time-per-game control (I've seen this on another site). Exceed your time per move, and you lose the game.
Implement a "ping" mechanism that makes itself available to the waiting player after, say, 10% of the game's time has elapsed without a move. It would allow you to send a non-obtrusive "are you there?" query to the player who's turn it is and they would have to either respond by clicking a button or by making their move. Failure to do so could result in either game adjournment, or forfeiture.
Provide statistics such as timeout %, and maybe something like the average time for all of the the moves on which they timed out so that you can more easily identify and avoid these players.
Provide a feedback mechanism that is provided by each player's opponents and is reported on as a part of a player's stats so that you might more easily avoid these players, and also to serve as the basis for any punitive action by the site.
Time per move controls are okay if agreed to by both players, but you might just be penalising players for genuinely taking a few minutes to think over a very challenging position. In a 30 0 game, that's completely legitimate.
The ping function looks pretty cool, but during shorter time controls, make bathroom breaks impossible :( In a twenty minute game (long by site standards), you only have two minutes to... refresh yourself, if we go by the 10% suggestion.
The stats idea is good. Public shaming might be the best way to go at this.
i know it may seem like its being a bit more than grumpy, but as iv said this happens on a regular basis, and i dont want to let these guys decide when and how i play chess
they are pretty good ideas ya lol.
Titov wrote:
fgm351 wrote:
I have one acroynm to say to you, just one Acroynm: FICS!
Please explain.
Google is your friend.
KillaNinja wrote:
i know it may seem like its being a bit more than grumpy, but as iv said this happens on a regular basis, and i dont want to let these guys decide when and how i play chess
A 15 0 game take thirty minutes, a 30 0 takes an hour. You can't expect for the game to finish early, it's just a bonus when it does.
Schachgeek wrote:
If your opponent's in a tight spot he has every right to reflect longer - seeking the best move. You do understand that if he runs out of time before he makes his next move, you win, right?
Sure, but if you have a free half hour, and you'd like a quick game o get the juices going, it's no fun watching a clock run down. I dont know, maybe some players purely chase results, but I prefer acyually playing...
Schachgeek wrote:
In blitz especially but in any chess game where clocks are involved, clock management is part of the game.
If you have an extra piece but you lose on time that extra piece does not matter.
Or the position is overwhelmingly in your favor but...there's that blasted clock again.
If you're winning, prove it! On the board, before your time runs out.
If your opponent's in a tight spot he has every right to reflect longer - seeking the best move. You do understand that if he runs out of time before he makes his next move, you win, right?
As for the suggestions to "ping" a player, people do that now with incessant draw offers, chats, and even rematch offers while the game is still in progress. We don't need to add some other feature that will increase lag and overhead.
Feeback systems such as ebay's are a proven failure, used more often as sour grapes or to retaliate against someone. It should be sufficient to list the number of time outs or intentional disconnects a player has had.
And one more thing! If you don't like the time controls that you agree to at the beginning of the game, don't accept or issue challenges for those time controls!
Given that the suggestion is that the ping would only becomes available once certain conditions are met, I don't think that it would really be subject to abuse. I also don't see how it would contribute materially to the lag.
Also, E-bay's feedback mechanism is a proven failure? How so?
rooperi wrote:
Schachgeek wrote:
If your opponent's in a tight spot he has every right to reflect longer - seeking the best move. You do understand that if he runs out of time before he makes his next move, you win, right?
Sure, but if you have a free half hour, and you'd like a quick game o get the juices going, it's no fun watching a clock run down. I dont know, maybe some players purely chase results, but I prefer acyually playing...
Agreed -- you don't just agree to the time, you agree to the game. This kind of abuse is basically lack of fulfilment of the latter by your opponent while you are left obligated to fulfil the former.
Someone is doing it to me right now.
Schachgeek wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Also, E-bay's feedback mechanism is a proven failure? How so?
Sellers use it to retaliate against buyers who leave negative feedback.
Specific example - I purchased a CPU that was represented as fully functional. CPU that arrived was dead, dead, dead. Seller did not respond to 5 different e-mails over the next month so I posted negative feedback. Within seconds, seller responded to the negative feedback and false info about the case.
Grobe you've spent plenty of time in the forums, including the cheating forum. Don't you see the potential for abuse here on chess.com, especially considering the caliber/maturity level of many of our users?
There are measures that can be taken to address this type of thing. For example you could give the players a limited amount of time to provide feedback on each other and they wouldn't get to see each other's feedback until that time is up. There would be no "response" per se, and if you didn't provide feedback within the time-frame then you don't get to.
Add to this, visibility into each players ranking, and how they've ranked (to see if they're an abuser) and I think you'd have a fairly good mechanism.
Of course it doesn't completely elminate the opportunity for abuse, any of this sites features can be subject to abuse -- even the block function which is meant to be a tool to deal with abuse.
May 25, 2010
0
#18
pwrgmrguard wrote:
You really can't moderate this stuff. If its such an issue play games with a tighter time limit, or do something else in a different tab, or eat sandwich.
It's annoying, but until you can suggest a reasonable solution, the current set up is the best available. Giving players powers to force their opponent to either speed up or the ability to force an end with a decision either way is too abusable, and defeats the purpose of including clocks and time limits.
But what kind of sandwich? Chess.com refuses to provide a snack bar, and that leaves me having not only to make my own sandwich, but taking time from my life cutting cucumbers!
I don't mind it at all when this happens. It gives me satisfaction knowing that I was beating my opponent so badly that he just quit the window. Kink the online equivalent of flipping the board over. The extra time gives me an opportunity to dance around the room in jubilation.
Nearly every day in live chess I come across some idiot who thinks it would be a fun idea to leave the time running and not show me the decency of resigning.
I want to know how big of a thing this is, because I have asked multiple times to get something done about this and I'm beginning to be simply ignored at this stage.
The mods on live always say the same thing - that they have to give these idiots the benefit of the doubt and leave me out in the rain. Games that have 10 minutes left on the clock sometimes are just abandoned with a clearly lost possition and I'm told I'm just going to have to wait until the ass on the other side decides that I can finish the game. Its pathetic. The mods on live chess need to stop protecting these fools and close the game when its clearly lost.
Let me know if this happens to you much, I'm beginning to really think its just me.