Minimum time per move please

@StephenPS said in #40:

Well, you want ultrabullet in OTB? Or you want ultrabullet to be removed from lichess?
I was talking about premoves.

Yeah, but "if it was really logical, it'd have been a thing in otb, but unfortunately, it's not." makes no sense.
Playing ultrabullet without premoves is just so different.

People that complain about lag compensation: do you live far away from the servers? For instance far away from France in Europe?

In fast paced multiplayer games server location actually matters a lot, it's kind of a miracle so many people can play insane time scrambles when I know there are not that many lichess servers amongst the world.

@Hitsugaya said in #43:

People that complain about lag compensation: do you live far away from the servers?
In fast paced multiplayer games server location actually matters a lot, it's kind of a miracle so many people can play insane time scrambles when I know there are not that many lichess servers amongst the world.
Your points are valid, but we aren't complaining directly about lag compensation but about premoves. As a matter of fact, i think lag compensation is a great thing but unfortunately, current premove mechanisms aren't.

@StephenPS said in #42:

Playing ultrabullet without premoves is just so different.
I think the creator of this topic has mentioned it clearly that he wants premoves to take atleast a tiny time from the clock and not remove premoves entirely.

I think the creator of this topic has mentioned it clearly that he wants premoves to take atleast a tiny time from the clock and not remove premoves entirely.

It wouldn't solve the problem however.

@ColossusChess said in #45:

It wouldn't solve the problem however.
Thank God, atleast someone finally agreed that there IS a problem. It's ok if you think this suggestion won't work. Would you like to suggest a different approach?

@lakfish said in #44:

Your points are valid, but we aren't complaining directly about lag compensation but about premoves. As a matter of fact, i think lag compensation is a great thing but unfortunately, current premove mechanisms aren't.

Some people mentioned lag compensation, but on your topic personally I like the premove system and it seems to work seamlessly more often than not. What I don't know is if I would still like it if I consistently had a worse connection, probably not. But then I would use an increment.

OP also said :

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.

And you said:

Having the ability to make moves faster than the speed of light (by the clock) is truly magical and at the same time illogical at its best. What more explanation do you need?

So this topic is just a matter of taste and perspective, basically you guys don't like it and I respect that.

It's not a matter of logic, it's just a game with its arbitrary rules. Not everything has to be decided by who is better at pure chess, I find it more fun/engaging when speed of execution is also in the equation. It's closer to something like a tactical shooter in a way, which is a good thing for me because I love them but I get that for some people it's different.

Perhaps you should do a poll to see if you guys are in the minority or not, if the vast majority of people prefer adding 0.1s per move perhaps lichess might change this in the future. I wish they don't though.

And adding 0.1s would also make 1/4+0 unplayable, and 1/2+0 a hassle to play, when the solution of using a longer time control or increments (or using chess.com) already exists.

@Hitsugaya said in #47:

it seems to work seamlessly more often than not
It's not about whether it's working as intended, it's about why such a thing is intended in the first place.

It's not a matter of logic, it's just a game with its arbitrary rules. Not everything has to be decided by who is better at pure chess
Well that's actually well thought. Chess, like every other game, has its own arbitrary rules which are same for everyone. Premoves, however, are not a "rule" in chess; they're just a thing of online chess. Even so, not deducting any time and hence allowing players to play moves in technically no time is just a thing only on lichess, as far as I know.

Perhaps you should do a poll to see if you guys are in the minority or not,
Great idea again! But the first message kind of already acts like a poll and, seeing from the thumbs, the number of people in favour are around half of the people against. I think that's what matters: what the majority likes.

Ps. I strongly advise not to mention the other site directly to prevent any unintended traffic forwarding. You can use a phrase like "the green site", "the paid site" etc.

@mkubecek said in #30:

I can't say I understand why someone would do that but it does not really matter. Pity both of you focused on the minor sidenote and completely missed the point of comment #21. So I'll try to be more clear.

It makes me very sad that so many people here no longer care about the game of chess and focus of technicalities of making their opponent flag as if it were the primary goal of the game. And the paragraph from #19 I quoted in #21 illustrates that. When I'm in a winning position and my opponent does not resign, my only concern (regarding the clock) is whether I'll be able to convert my advantage and finish the game within the time I have left. Why should I care about my opponent's time, his/her premoving or how fast he/she makes the moves? And if I'm not in a winning position, why should I expect - or even feel entitled - to win in the first place? Seriously, I don't understand how anyone can be proud of a win on time in a losing position (or a hoplesly drawish endgame, FWIW). But reading the discussions here it sometimes feels as if winning by timeout were the primary point of a chess game.

I’m having difficulty understanding where you are coming from. Not because your words aren’t clear (they are) but because I can’t tell what you are responding to, or rather what you are reading into the comments you are responding to.

In the game that triggered my original post, I was in a winning position, or at least one that was I unlikely to lose. My opponent was clever enough to see that he could waste time rather than try to win, but he had 1/2 a second left on the clock, while I still had plenty. He ultra-super- time-stoppingly flagged and took the win.

The clock is there for a reason. I accept that some folks like their timeouts, defeating players with their quickness, using unpredictable play to slow and frustrate their opponents.

So when you admonish folks by saying “it sometimes feels as if winning by timeout were the primary point of a chess game” I can feel you this close to agreeing with the main point here — that these zero-time premoves (especially as they aren’t evenly available) allow players to defeat actual clever chess play with mindless timeouts.

I’m with you, I often don’t understand how folks are proud of a win on timeout when they didn’t otherwise play a good game. In their defence, it might be hard to notice in the moment that is what they are doing.

Also, being human, confirmation and other biases are always ready to come to the rescue when one is close to concluding that one has been anything other than noble, brave and clever.

Peace :)

@Awum said in #49:

that these zero-time premoves (especially as they aren’t evenly available) allow players to defeat actual clever chess play with mindless timeouts.

I’m with you, I often don’t understand how folks are proud of a win on timeout when they didn’t otherwise play a good game. In their defence, it might be hard to notice in the moment that is what they are doing.
sorry, i must point your wrong there. flagging is a legitimate strategy in chess, much like knowing how to leverage time and psychologically pressurise your opponent in poker. if you dont like it, blame the game not the players.