Can we correct the warning message that automatically comes

I think “wasting time” should not be punished. It’s just not a thing. Each player is allocated a certain amount of time and they must be allowed to spend it as they please. Losing a game on time is more than enough as a disincentive/punishment.

Personally, I would not care too much if someone runs down the clock in bullet or blitz. It would be preferable to think and make good moves in tough positions.

In a recent game, the server was trying to reconnect. My clock went from 2:32 to 1:36, and then auto-resigned while I was winning (+5.1). It warned me for not resigning before leaving, even though I was winning and trying to reconnect.

@MarkIorio Maximum thinking time is just the time control, which you decide when you queue for a game. There is no maximum thinking time on a single move if you stay in the game, and as long as you don't run out of time while thinking for too long. I could spend the first 59 seconds of a 1 minute game thinking about my second move, and if I make my second move, I wouldn't get the warning.

@picchiolu Yes, you should be able to use your time as you please, unless you use it specifically to waste other people's time, which is what the system aims to combat: bad sportmanship. Plus, this is especially relevant in longer time controls like blitz, rapid, and classical. I'm sure no one would want to sit at a board waiting for minutes just to get a win. Losing a game on time isn't enough of a disincentive if you are already going to lose anyway. In that situation, it's just rude.

In theory, this system works effectively to punish bad sportsmanship:

• In longer time controls (blitz, rapid, and classical), the only reason that you would run out of time thinking was if you were a "salt-staller."

• In shorter time controls (bullet), the whole point is that you don't have much time to think. You can't get lost in thought or else you'll lose on time, so players should be constantly aware of their time. There shouldn't be anyone who thinks for too long and ends up running out of time; anyone who does is aware of what they are doing.

If people are so insistent about adjusting this system, then the best proposal that you can make is that games that are shorter than a certain time control (for example, bullet) don't have the warning. I don't know how hard this would be to code into the system, though. Plus, even waiting for 30 seconds can be annoying in bullet.

@BACollin If we decide to punish rudeness, what about players who intentionally prolong a game in a winning position just to torture the opponent? What about players who try to set stealmate traps in a completely lost position? Shouldn't they "just resign" instead?

I bet you'd say that, in those cases, they are just following the rules... well, spending the time you have allocated is also "following the rules". I am surprised we are trying to "moralize" the players like this. Once you start punishing people on "moral" or "sportmanship" grounds, things become so arbitrary that there's no end to the viciousness of the "rules" one can come up with.

@picchiolu I'm a bit confused about the point that you are making. Are you saying that if we can't punish some forms of bad sportsmanship, then to be fair to everyone, we shouldn't punish any form of bad sportsmanship? I think that we should do the best that we can to make the system as best it can be, partly by teaching proper manners and etiquette. I don't ever remember writing that I was "moralizing" prolonging any games (in fact, I'm quite against it, which is why I like the warning system) or setting stalemate traps. I wouldn't say that prolonging a game where you are in a winning position is good at all; where would you get that idea?

However, time is a built-in function of chess, as is stalemating. Setting stalemate traps is an internal part of the game, and it is the duty of the opponent to avoid them. In contrast, running your clock out intentionally, or prolonging a won position have external influences on the actual chess game. There is a difference.

I don't see how setting moral standards is a bad thing. Most people should agree on basic principles, such as this one. A few years ago I was at an in-person classical tournament and faced an opponent who openly admitted to onlookers that he was just "going to let his time run out" after I gained a winning position. If you don't have moral standards, that's when people decide to do these kinds of things.

@BACollin if setting stalemate traps in a lost position is "playing by the rules" then so is using one's time at one's own discretion. Psychology is part of the game and if I can find ways of pissing off my opponent and force him to abandon in a winning position (e.g. by "wasting" my own time), I am entitled to pursue them. All the tricks I mentioned belong to the same array of tricks that someone would define "unfair" or "against sportmanship", but they don't infringe any rule of the game and would not be sanctioned by an arbiter.

As far as I know, players do not have any obligation to play at their opponent's pace, nor are they obliged not to "waste" their opponent's time.

We can of course decide that lichess wants to teach people how to live and behave (that's what a moral authority does, FYI): but please, don't pretend for a second that it's about enforcing some non-existent chess rule.

Setting moral standards is not a bad thing: but then you have to explain me how setting stalemate traps or trying to win on time in a totally lost position is acceptable behavior while wasting one's own time is sanctionable.

Standards are ok. Double standards are not acceptable.

@BACollin One more thing: the problem with "making the system as best it can be" lies in deciding who's allowed to define what "best" is.

You seem to be persuaded that "wasting one's own time" is bad and upsets the opponent; I say that setting stalemate traps or torturing the opponent by not following the shortest route to mate are also bad and upsetting behaviors. On that basis, why should we only punish "time waster" and not "stalemate pundits"? Both are using the rules to their own advantage.

@picchiolu

FYI: Lichess’s policy (see here https://lichess.org/faq#leaving) is not unique. All other platforms I’m aware of have similar ones; cf.: https://www.chess.com/community#sportsmanship It is also explicitly stated in § 9.3 of the official FIDE Handbook: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Competition_Rules.pdf In other words, this 𝘪𝘴 a rule of chess — and, AFAIK, universally enforced. Anywhere chess is played, time wasting is expressly forbidden. If you play somewhere else, you may find the exact amount of time you can “safely waste” differs, but that’s about the only difference you will find.

For better or worse, time wasting is a real problem in online chess. I’ve been the victim of it several times now. In one case, I began a 30-minute game with someone; and after making just one move, my opponent waited 29 minutes to make a second one. 😐 He then finished the rest of the game at bullet pace. I easily defeated him — then reported & blocked him. 😉 In the chatbox, he admitted his bad faith. He thought it was funny (the devil knows why). I, on the other hand, was not amused. I think his idea was to induce 𝘮𝘺 resignation, so that he could gain some meaningless points without working for them. Well! I don’t wish to spend my life as the subject of such childish experiments. I joined that game to play chess, not for any other purpose. (If I’d wanted to do something else, I would have.) He absolutely deserved to be banned; I only hope he has since learned his lesson, and grown up.

picchiolu,

I always appreciate your posts, and usually share your opinions, but in this case I’m afraid you are having it both ways: One cannot play chess, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 not play chess. 🤨

When you host or join a game on this server, you are explicitly agreeing and formally undertaking to 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘴 with your opponent for 𝑥 minutes. Not to sit there and read a book for 𝑥 minutes, or text on your phone for 𝑥 minutes, or do anything else for 𝑥 minutes. And if you don’t play, but instead twiddle your thumbs, it isn’t “your” time you are wasting; that time is shared with your opponent, and it belongs to you both. You may be using it productively from your POV, but you are wasting 𝘩𝘪𝘴 time.

When you agreed to play, you entered into a contract with another party. You are obliged to use the time allotted to fulfill that contract, and not for any other purpose. If you fail to abide by its terms for any reason (the actual reason doesn’t even matter), you are breaching said contract — which is the most basic of all possible contracts between players, BTW (i.e., the simple agreement to 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘴, as opposed to doing anything else during that time), and therefore breaching it is the most fundamental of all possible transgressions. (Selah.) If you did this by accident, it can & will be forgiven; if however you did it deliberately, it most certainly shan’t be. If any conceivable instance of bad sportsmanship is or ever could be punishable, such a fundamental breach of contract surely qualifies. To deny this, you must argue against the very concept of sportsmanship, good or bad. And I don’t think you want to do that. (At least not with me. 🙂)

In person, you can’t pick up a book and start reading during the game. (And you certainly can’t pull out your phone and start looking things up on it; that could potentially be cheating.) Online, there is of course no way to determine if you have done such things during the downtime; but whether you are actually cheating, or merely stalling, is immaterial. The reason for the delay doesn’t even matter: the delay, itself, is punishable. (Did your baby just crawl into the middle of the street? By all means go grab the little guy and bring him back! You can explain & apologize later. And don’t ever let that happen again, for your baby’s sake as well as your own.) Naturally, sometimes people really are thinking, or sometimes they have bad connections; all I have to say about that is, too bad. 🥱 You know what went wrong; be more careful next time. But it is absolutely essential that people like some of those I have faced be discouraged from ever 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 stalling in any online, real-time, turn-based game, chess included. If they weren’t, the number of complaints (from the other side) would rise exponentially — and I for one would quit playing here.

I hope this suffices to explain why the policy in question is necessary & good. Cheers.