@Cedur216 I understand your frustration, but I think that's also part of the game. I think best would be for you not to play the same opponent ever again.
I don't think your opponent should be punished by the site for being a bad sport. Social stigma is more than enough, in my opinion. Block him/her or don't play against him/her anymore.
If we were to sanction all the behaviors we find annoying or disrespectful at the board (virtual or real), we should start banning people who play the Bongcloud, for example... I hope you see where this could lead to.
I don't share your attitude at all. Basically you'd want to abolish the word "bad sport".
@Cedur216 not at all. I think poor sportmanship should not be sanctioned by the website, because it is extremely difficult to define what should be considered as such. Trolling an opponent with a silly opening should also be consided bad sportmanship: is it sanctioned in any way?
If someone doesn't display good sportmanship, s/he'll receive the correct amount of social stigma for that. That's enough, I believe.
@pawnedge I see your point and you explained very well the reasons why you believe there should be consequences for those who "waste" other players' time. I don't disagree with that at all, on the contrary. I disagree on the nature on the consequences.
You seem to believe that banning a player for wasting another player's time is the right thing to do, on the basis that both players implicitly agreed upon "playing" a game of chess. That's where we disagree. I think losing the game and scoring negative karma points (as well as accumulating social stigma) are enough of a punishment for this kind of behavior.
Even though there's no "reading a book" or "checking the phone" over the board, I can totally see players letting their time run up: it happened in the past and will happen time and again. Such behavior is not sanctionable in OTB play. It's annoying, it's unfair, it's stupid: whatever. But it's not sanctionable.
In my opinion, a chess site should refrain from punishing other players simply because they didn't give us the game we wanted (and didn't infringe any of the rules of the game in doing so). It might be true that players implicitly "sign a contract" when they decide to play against each other, but I have a very hard time in figuring out what the scope of such a contract would be.
I accept the fact that lichess has its own version of such "contract" and it punishes "time wasters" with bans et similia: I just strongly disagree with such an apporach. :)
@pawnedge based on your definition of the "contract", not making the first move should be punishable (loss + warning or ban). By the moment a player makes one move, the contract is fullfilled. (You can't really be sure about the reasons why s/he stopped making moves).
Please, note: I don't really agree on the existence of such a contract. I am just trying to say that deciding what the scope of the contract is isn't easy and it can be very subjective. Unless the contract is written somewhere. Even then, the part on "time wasters" is not based on any existing "chess rules": it's just based on lichess' own idea of sportmanship.
EDIT: I was obviously wrong. The Laws of Chess do address the situation where a player leaves the game without resigning. But that applies to leaving the board or the playing hall, I believe.
While I appreciate the debate. And it's actually very entertaining. I would like to point out that thinking legit or getting lost in a position forgetting about time is NOT against rules. No matter how you want to restate it to fit an agenda. Purposely wasting time in a losing position is easy to note in otb play because you can observe and investigate it. You can observe and investigate time wasting online as well but the process would be different.
HOWEVER I am talking about 10-15 maybe 20 seconds where you just want to play a good move and forget about time or you lose your momentum because your opponent played something that surprised you and you go into a legit think. These things I speak of are in no universe bad sportsmanship. I can understand stopping moving in a -3 position for 30+ seconds and getting a warning, but I resign in those positions. If I know I am losing and no redemption. I resign. And you can even investigate this. My problem is simply punishing or threatening to punish people who are legitimate. I think it's bad form.
The debate so far I believe belongs in a thread that debates chess ethics. It seems like it belongs here and I would love to participate in it, but it's really not the point I am making.
#20 #24 FIDE's rulebook has this to say:
9 Conduct of the Players
9.1 Once a player has formally accepted an invitation, he must play except in exceptional circumstances (force majeure), such as illness or incapacity. Acceptance of another invitation is not considered to be a valid reason for not participating or for withdrawing.
9.2 All the participants should be dressed in a suitable manner. In case of violation of the dresscode regulations, they may be penalised – see FIDE Handbook A.09 – Code of Ethics article
3.2
9.3 A player who does not wish to continue a game, but leaves without resigning or notifying the arbiter, is discourteous. He may be penalised, at the discretion of the CA, for poor sportsmanship – see FIDE Handbook E.01 – Laws of Chess article 12.9
9.4 Where it is clear that results have been arranged – see FIDE Handbook E.01 – Laws of Chess article 11.1, the CA shall impose suitable penalties – see FIDE Handbook E.01 – Laws of Chess article 12.9
9.5 The players should not eat at the chessboard during the game
This raises the question (answered in #20) about what constitutes leaving; separately, Chess.com sportsmanship rules also mention (for online play):
* Do not make your opponents wait unnecessarily
This is to say, FIDE rules that I've seen, even after FIDE making bold proclamations about requiring new rules for online play (and here they are https://rcc.fide.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FideOnlineChessRegulations.pdf ), are inadequate as compared to Chess.com. Of course FIDE's online rules disallow cheating (use of other software), but this doesn't fix the "my opponent is unsportsmanlike" issue:
J. Condition of Entry in an Online Sports Event
By entering the competition each player accepts the above-mentioned measures as a condition of entry and agrees that his/her participation is subject to these measures. Specifically, a player agrees to be screened by an online screening tool and agrees that he/she might face disciplinary sanctions.
I am unaware of how Chess.com and other non-FIDE play zones currently handle infractions of "time wasting" particularly given how vague the rule is and how frequent exceptions to that rule must be for non-FIDE play (and yet something must be done for deliberate or repeat offenders, but how can such enforcement be fair/non-selective?). I don't suppose it's like 81Dojo where players have karma scores for good/bad behavior.
#24 As I said before, losing rating points is not a disincentive for players who deliberately run out their time in losing positions. This is because they will *already* be losing points. The effect on the game is *external* to the actual game. Contrary to setting up stalemate traps, nothing can be done by the winning side to avoid time-wasters. You can't make your opponent's time run faster, but you can avoid a stalemate trap.
Since we're arguing on the concepts of ethics and sportsmanship, lichess' temporary ban system is unique, but the concept is nonunique. Chess.com has a system where you can rate you opponent as a "good sport" or "bad sport," and if a player gets enough "bad sport" ratings, they will enter a player pool of only "bad sports." I'm not saying I agree with this system, but it shows how the concept of identifying and punishing bad sportsmanship is widely accepted in the community across multiple platforms and FIDE.
Let's use the two-world analogy:
In @picchiolu 's world, sportsmanship is not defined and people have no incentives to follow ethical behavior. Players play against higher quantities of rude people, and become frustrated with the website. Unsportsmanslike behavior is rampant because their is no moral standard and no method of enforcing it. Time is wasted, and the quality of lichess, its playerbase, and online chess decreases.
In the current world, using the system that lichess already has in place, people who display unethical behavior--behavior which is recognized as unsportsmanlike by the majority of players and organizations--are taught to do better through a temporary ban. It's like a wake-up call. Everyone benefits in this system: players who are rude salt-stallers learn that they can't get away with such behavior, and they will cease these actions. Players who just want to enjoy their chess games deal with less bad-sports because the bad sports are changing for the better. Players who are legitimate thinkers, such as @MeWantCookieMobile, shouldn't get banned because the occurrence of running out of time while thinking is rare. Plus, it teaches them to be mindful of their clocks, leading to more gameplay and less time-outs. Ultimately, it is an effective system that eliminates the bad and promotes the good.
That is not to say that there are no side-effects to this, or that it is possible to catch all forms of bad sportsmanship. However, the side-effect of the few legitimate thinkers who accidentally run out of time while thinking, who probably won't receive the ban because their time-outs happen rarely, is arguably a great trade-off for eliminating behavior that degrades from the game of chess itself. And while it is impossible right now to catch people who prolong a won position (which you could combat by just resigning), at least the system in place is doing something against another form of bad sportsmanship. If you think that enforcing any rules based on morality are too arbitrary, remember that this specific issue, the action of deliberately running your clock out in a lost position, is recognized as a punishable offense by FIDE, chess.com, lichess, and nearly the enire massive community of chess players.
@BACollin ". 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."
But if you /don't/ make the second move, how long can you spend without receiving the warning? That is the 'maximum thinking time' we are talking about, that should be declared.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.