Proposing a feature to address players intentionally wasting time

Dear LiChess Players,

I would like to propose a feature to address the issue of players intentionally wasting time by letting their clock run down without making moves. In a recent game, my opponent stalled for over 35 minutes without making a single move, only resuming play with just 23 seconds left on their clock. This behavior not only wastes the opponent’s time but also disrupts the flow of the game.

I suggest implementing an automatic resignation rule for inactivity in 30-minute games, 45-minute games, or longer time controls. If a player does not make a move within a certain time threshold (e.g., 10-15 minutes in a 45-minute game), they would receive a warning, and if they remain inactive beyond that point, they should be automatically forfeited.

This change would encourage fair play and improve the experience for those who value their time and the integrity of the game.

Thank you for your time and for considering this suggestion.

Best,
Fittrader

Automatic resignation would be against the rules of chess.
The good news: The behaviour you described is detected by the system, and if a player does it regularly, he will get temporal play bans.

@sheckley666 said in #2:

Automatic resignation would be against the rules of chess.
The good news: The behaviour you described is detected by the system, and if a player does it regularly, he will get temporal play bans.
It's not detected in the system if they move with 30 seconds left , I was also.proposing something like this in a drunk rant the other day , if it's obvious they have no moves left then after 5 mins a warning otherwise you have to go through the whole hassle of reporting wasting even more time xxx

https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/make-new-ruling-to-avoid-stalling--this-is-on-line-chess-and-new-rules-can-be-made

I get your idea, but thinking 10-15 min in a 45 min game might be something I do in a 45 min game. Maybe combined with a bathroom break, too. (I only play those otb though). So while your inital example seems pretty obvious it would be difficult to determine what is ok behaviour and what is wasting time.
If I start a game, I commit to beeing willing to spend the time it takes. Even if I spent it waiting.

It is really hard to tell automatically if some long think is ok or not, except for some very obvious cases.

You can report them however, there is the option to report players for stalling. I have used this myself a couple of times. It won't fix the current game, but maybe help against repeat offenders.

According to FIDE Laws of Chess, Article 6.7, a player who does not make their required moves within the allotted time loses the game unless an arbiter decides otherwise. Also, Article 6.7.1 states that if a player is not present at the start of a game, they lose by default after a set time period.

In official tournaments, if a player fails to move for an extended period, they lose on time. Online platforms don’t have human arbiters for every game, but a warning system followed by automatic resignation would serve the same purpose, ensuring fair play while allowing active players to indicate they are still engaged.

The issue isn’t about punishing players who briefly step away but preventing intentional stalling that wastes time and disrupts games. Implementing a system where a player who remains inactive for 10-15 minutes in long games receives a warning, followed by auto-resignation if they don’t respond, would align online play more closely with FIDE tournament standards.

@Fittrader said in #7:

In official tournaments, if a player fails to move for an extended period, they lose on time.
Never heard of that. In contrary, I remember Alexander Grischuk "wasting" most of his time on a few early moves.

@Fittrader said in #7:

In official tournaments, if a player fails to move for an extended period, they lose on time.

is that right? i never knew that

@Fittrader
I looked up the regulations you cited. (Actually it's article 6.9, not 6.7, but w/e.) In context the article is clearly talking about players flagging normally, not any special "anti-stalling" rule. It's just worded in obtuse, codified English. There is nothing there about arbiters being able to declare a player "stalling" and make him resign. Where did you ever hear of such a thing?