Minimum time per move please

For the record, I have no problem with premoves, just zero-time premoves. Lichess is the only platform I'm aware of that allows them.

I appreciate that some folks like that they can make zero-time pre-moves, and if that is you, then feel free to disagree with me. I'm just not seeing any good arguments that it is applied fairly or that it adds to the game.

Also, I've noticed that not everyone seems to know that Lichess chose to ban extensions which allow folks to stack premoves. Using such extensions is now considered cheating.

I have no idea how they can catch that, but rather than rely on people to be "honest" and knowledgeable of the rules, why not remove the advantage of these extensions? Until then, if you beat me with multiple zero-time moves, I will suspect you of cheating. I'd rather not.

@Awum said in #11:

For the record, I have no problem with premoves, just zero-time premoves. Lichess is the only platform I'm aware of that allows them.

Just out of curiosity, why don't you chose increment time controls? Like mkubecek said before, even a 1+1 time control takes the sting out of fast premoves. I personally like how Lichess implements premoves- the 0.1 seconds on chesscom is mainly because of how you can chain infinite premoves. But of course I see why others don't like the feeling of playing against it. In general I like to remain neutral here because its a tough argument to settle on 'what chess is supposed to be.'

I think (if done without external assistance) premoves on lichess rely on some level of skill and I don't often see people able to blitz out tons in a row, but that's just my own experience.

But what I was wondering about is how does chesscom taking .1 seconds off the premoves help your argument? You would still instantly be brought back on your own time, the 0.1 seconds is just the server artificially removing it from the clock. So if you would be driven to lose on time here, in most cases you would lose on time there (Unless you count the 0.1 seconds towards the opponent losing on time, but I think that's really rare).

But these are problems with premoves in general. They are really effective with no increment and can cheese out wins. But increment time controls are available as well so I don't entirely understand the dislike against them.

And adding on to this, I think adding a minimum time per move defeats a lot of the freedom of online chess, and it would cause more harm than the premoves do right now. Imagine the hordes of people complaining about losing because they weren't even able to make a move. Perhaps a better solution exists, but for now I still use increment just for this reason.

I do choose increment time controls where I can. I like to play antichess, e.g., in which there are few increment tournaments. So playing only increments = no fast games. In principle I don't think anyone should be unfairly limited in any case. If we could institute 0.1 second minimums in tournaments, that would be enough to make me happy.

The 0.1 seconds provides an upper limit to the number of moves one can do in a short time. SO, when you have squeezed your opponent down to 0.4 seconds on the clock, the best he can do is 4 moves. That doesn't seem hard done by.

Compare that to the game I just played where the player managed to squeeze in 20 moves in 0.1 second. I accept that time is part of the game, but I outplayed him, getting down to a two-king endgame with virtually no time left on the clock for him, and a few seconds for me. And I lost, because my premoves slowly ate away the few seconds I had left while he wiggled his king over the board.

In short, losing a game in which you outplayed your opponent on time. If I'd seen it coming I could have eked out a draw but again, it's a draw in which opponent was outplayed on time.

It's an extreme example of something I've experienced before, but ultimately it took a strategy away from me -- to make him think, use up time, throw some curveballs.

Other than that, I just don't get the vibe. Sure, online is different from OTB, but these ridiculously fast moves don't make the fast games better, just less engaging. I remember those sports arcade games with the buttons, where the faster you pressed the buttons, oh whatever, shoot me now!

Anyway. I've said my piece, I think a minimum time per move would improve the playing experience, and the fairness. Thanks for listening :)

@Emmet_Schuler said in #13:

Imagine the hordes of people complaining about losing because they weren't even able to make a move

(1) Um... that's me, now. We're already there.

(2) "Hordes": most people wouldn't notice. How many people frequently take more than ten moves in a second and know it? If I lost the ability tomorrow to ever squeeze out a zero time move, I guarantee it would be unnoticeable to my regular play, well, except for missing out on the experience of losing to a player doing tens of moves in zero time :)

(3) Hordes aren't complaining at Chess.com, so no reason to believe that would happen here.

Cheers!

@Awum said in #15:

(1) Um... that's me, now. We're already there.

(2) "Hordes": most people wouldn't notice. How many people frequently take more than ten moves in a second and know it? If I lost the ability tomorrow to ever squeeze out a zero time move, I guarantee it would be unnoticeable to my regular play, well, except for missing out on the experience of losing to a player doing tens of moves in zero time :)

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you meant minimum time per move as a metric of waiting several seconds before you can move to eliminate time struggles. My bad, ignore that comment! :)
I wonder if these time skirmishes happen more often in antichess, where the board can open up with many avenues for pieces to go. Maybe standard chess has too many checks etc on the king. It's interesting to think about

chess.com allows multiple pre-moves and that can be even more devasting in a fast game. Lihchess 0 move takes more effort as you have wait previous move to be executed before you can enter next one.

@Awum said in #1:

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 ️

If you wish for your premoves not to eat time then reduce the delay on your end your lag dont blame lichess

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.

chess.com does 0.1 but also allows multiple
lichess takes none but only allows one this makes it more fair

But also one cant play fast time controls that need low ping then complain about lag

@for_cryingout_loud said in #18:

If you wish for your premoves not to eat time then reduce the delay on your end

You got this backwards.

I don’t know why it took me so long to figure this out, but the actual problem is that lichess gives you back your “delay”, they call it lag compensation.

To quote Lichess (see Lichess.org/lag) “having a higher network lag than your opponent is not a handicap!” They say that because they add time back to your clock to compensate for the lag.

The purpose is to generally give players with slower connections the same time to respond to the other player’s move as the player with the fast connection has. Sounds fair, right? It is, mostly, so long as both players are responding to the other player’s moves.

Problem is, when the players are both down to a premove battle, the player with the slower connection is given more time to put in their next premove. That player gets in first, turn after turn, and consequently has a huge advantage in those brainless endgames, while the player with a fast connection has almost no chance.

Think about it. You can’t enter a premove until after your last move goes in, right? The lag compensation meanwhile adds the lag time back to your clock. So if you have a longer lag than your opponent, you have more time in between sending out your move and getting your opponent’s move back, to put in your next premove. It’s true on each and every turn. It won’t be much but it will be enough to make a difference, to allow you to get in ahead of your opponent and string together zeroes with little or no chance that your opponent can do the same.

So, I should what now, slow my connection down?

Point is, my personal experience is that it’s broken. I doubt Lichess developers intended the result, that a player can chew up time indefinitely with premoves because of lag compensation, but it sure looks like that’s what happening.

Lag compensation needs a backstop where premoves are concerned. My suggestion is 0.1 second minimum per move, but open to other suggestions.

@Emmet_Schuler said in #16:

I wonder if these time skirmishes happen more often in antichess, where the board can open up with many avenues for pieces to go. Maybe standard chess has too many checks etc on the king. It's interesting to think about

I think it happens in regular bullet too, if you get to a basically drawn game with few pieces on the board and little time left on one player’s clock.

But hey, it finally dawned on me how the problem is likely created by lag compensation coupled with premoves. The player with the longer ping time actually has more time between entering the first premove and receiving the opponent’s move, to enter the second premove. Lag compensation adds that time back in, resulting in a zero time move. The player doesn’t have much extra time, but even an extra 100ms per turn is enough to get the player with the slower connection out ahead and give them more time to respond before the next move shows up on their device.

Cheating or not, a 0.1 second minimum would blunt that advantage. I’m up for suggestions though,