Minimum time per move please

Add me to the list of folks who won’t play fast games on Lichess any more.

Losing a game on time to a player when you were well ahead in time, after opponent strings together multiple moves (19 in a game I just played) taking zero time, sucks all the joy out of playing short games. My premoves eat time, others do not ️

Chess.com takes a minimum of 0.1 seconds off the clock per move. It’s a better approximation of real life (where no player can move infinitely fast), it evens the playing field, and it discourages the use of banned extensions.

I can’t be the first person expressing this issue. You can’t let chess.com be better...

This is online chess

Not otb chess

If you want otb chess, play otb chess

Premoves are a part of online chess

If you lose on time thats your fault

Play with increment or chose a slower time control

The world doesn't revolve around you

@venter4971 said in #2:

If you want otb chess, play otb chess
Would you say the same to someone who complains about cheating in online chess? Telling them to "just play OTB" doesn't solve the problem. Premoves create an unrealistic advantage that doesn't exist in real chess, and online chess should still reflect the integrity of the game. People shouldn't have to give up fair competition just because they want the convenience of playing online.

If you lose on time thats your fault
Ofcourse. But not if certain features (like premoves) are unfair themselves.

Play with increment or chose a slower time control
The world doesn't revolve around you
It's not about a single person, but about the entire community.

@lakfish said in #3:

Premoves create an unrealistic advantage that doesn't exist in real chess, and online chess should still reflect the integrity of the game.
Extreme time controls in general have little to do with "real chess" or integrity of the game. I don't like it so I play different time controls, easy as that. Other users can't imagine spending three hours playing one game so they won't play 60+30. There is a lot to choose from.

If you don't like premoves, play x+1 controls, that's still too fast to actually think about the moves but you won't have to worry about premoves too much.

@mkubecek said in #4:

Extreme time controls in general have little to do with "real chess" or integrity of the game.
They've little to do with the advantage due to premoves, but they SHOULD have the a lot to do with the integrity of the game, since that's the most basic.

I don't like it so I play different time controls, easy as that. Other users can't imagine spending three hours playing one game so they won't play 60+30. There is a lot to choose from.
If you don't like premoves, play x+1 controls, that's still too fast to actually think about the moves but you won't have to worry about premoves too much.
It's not about what someone or some people like, it's about what would be better for everyone. Like i said earlier, telling anyone to just stick to few time controls doesn't solve the problem.

@lakfish said in #5:

telling anyone to just stick to few time controls doesn't solve the problem.
Apparently most of the users playing these time controls like premoves and consider them important part of the game. Therefore I'm not so sure about "the entire community" seeing it as a problem.

@mkubecek said in #6:

Therefore I'm not so sure about "the entire community" seeing it as a problem.
If people aren't aware of a problem, that doesn't mean there's no problem. That's why i see this topic as a means to spread awareness about the unfair consequences of premoves.

@lakfish said in #3:

Ofcourse. But not if certain features (like premoves) are unfair themselves.

It is not unfair as it same for both players and it told in rules of site so it does not come as surprise.
As for actual request I'am totally indifferent which way it is.

@petri999 said in #8:

It is not unfair as it same for both players and it told in rules of site so it does not come as surprise.
One will lose on resigning against a lone king, which is also unfair (atleast that's what most people in the forums say). Just because it might be told in the rules of site doesn't mean it's fair. Hypothetically, if it was told that you're free to stall in the rules of site, that doesn't validate stalling simply because it wasn't a surprise. Did you get it?

@venter4971 said in #2:

If you lose on time thats your fault

I hope you aren't deliberately choosing not to understand what I said.

When Player 1 makes premoves which take time off the clock but Player 2's opponent's moves do not, Player 1 loses because of something which is not in his control. By definition, that cannot be his "fault." This is exactly why Chess.com chose to institute the minimum time per move, so that no one has the magical ability to do zero time moves ad nauseum. It is not a part of "online chess," only Lichess.

Lichess does lag compensation, which is designed to try to make these things more equal for folks in different geographic areas with lag time to the servers. Sounds like a good idea... but what happens instead is that it applies intermittently to some, and other folks end up over-compensated and have access to many more zero time moves. I'm not the first person to notice this.

I am simply saying that I can't be the only one fleeing Lichess fast games because of it. As for the idea of only playing increment games -- (1) that limits the tournaments I can play and (2) that doesn't solve the issue because the other player can still fit unlimited moves into a tiny time space to gain a draw where he deserves to lose on time.

As for this not being a concern for all the community -- of course not, there will always be those who would rather hold on to the advantage.

Unlimited zero time moves is bad for the experience of the game, and there's an easy fix. That's all.