- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Proposing a feature to address players intentionally wasting time

#11

Actually, the correct rule is Article 6.7, not 6.9. Article 6.7 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states:

“Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise.”

While this rule does not explicitly use the term “stalling,” its intent is clear: failure to engage in play leads to forfeiture. In over-the-board (OTB) tournaments, if a player stops moving entirely, they will lose on time, regardless of whether they are deep in thought or deliberately delaying the game.

The argument that Article 6.7 is only about losing on time in the normal course of play is misleading. The rule establishes that inactivity results in a loss, which is precisely why stalling—deliberately refusing to move—is problematic. In OTB tournaments, an arbiter can step in to enforce this principle. However, in online play, where no arbiter is present, platforms like LiChess need mechanisms to prevent abuse.

An automatic resignation for prolonged inactivity would not be a departure from standard chess rules but rather an enforcement of their intent in an online setting. Players are already warned about inactivity, so this would not punish those who think deeply—it would prevent opponents from abandoning a game while forcing the other player to wait indefinitely.

By aligning LiChess policies with the intent of Article 6.7 and 6.7.1, we can uphold the standards of OTB play in the online realm, ensuring a fair and respectful experience for all players

Actually, the correct rule is Article 6.7, not 6.9. Article 6.7 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states: “Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise.” While this rule does not explicitly use the term “stalling,” its intent is clear: failure to engage in play leads to forfeiture. In over-the-board (OTB) tournaments, if a player stops moving entirely, they will lose on time, regardless of whether they are deep in thought or deliberately delaying the game. The argument that Article 6.7 is only about losing on time in the normal course of play is misleading. The rule establishes that inactivity results in a loss, which is precisely why stalling—deliberately refusing to move—is problematic. In OTB tournaments, an arbiter can step in to enforce this principle. However, in online play, where no arbiter is present, platforms like LiChess need mechanisms to prevent abuse. An automatic resignation for prolonged inactivity would not be a departure from standard chess rules but rather an enforcement of their intent in an online setting. Players are already warned about inactivity, so this would not punish those who think deeply—it would prevent opponents from abandoning a game while forcing the other player to wait indefinitely. By aligning LiChess policies with the intent of Article 6.7 and 6.7.1, we can uphold the standards of OTB play in the online realm, ensuring a fair and respectful experience for all players
#12

Sigh... likely I'll have to blog my opinion for it to be taken seriously. Anyway, I'll respond here...

I strongly disagree with Lichess policies which punish players for using their clock time. Rules and clocks exist, and with some imagination players can figure out how to set a base time plus an increment time which suits their interests.

Sigh... likely I'll have to blog my opinion for it to be taken seriously. Anyway, I'll respond here... I strongly disagree with Lichess policies which punish players for using their clock time. Rules and clocks exist, and with some imagination players can figure out how to set a base time plus an increment time which suits their interests.
#13

@Fittrader said in #11:

An automatic resignation for prolonged inactivity would not be a departure from standard chess rules but rather an enforcement of their intent in an online setting. Players are already warned about inactivity, so this would not punish those who think deeply—it would prevent opponents from abandoning a game while forcing the other player to wait indefinitely.

Unless there is a mind reader feature, deep thinking is indistinguishable from deliberate inactivity. Like @Toadofsky said: the clock is there... you choose your time control, you live by it. Whatever someone does with his/her time is strictly their business.

A hypothetical example of deliberate time wasting with which I agree is in Arena Tournaments: I am fighting for position with the person I am playing. I have 50 seconds left, tournament has 40 seconds left. I am ahead in the standings... I will not make another move and be above my opponent in the standings. (Note: I probably wouldn't do that, I also more than likely will never fight for a meaningful rank in an arena tournament :D )

@Fittrader said in #11: > An automatic resignation for prolonged inactivity would not be a departure from standard chess rules but rather an enforcement of their intent in an online setting. Players are already warned about inactivity, so this would not punish those who think deeply—it would prevent opponents from abandoning a game while forcing the other player to wait indefinitely. Unless there is a mind reader feature, deep thinking is indistinguishable from deliberate inactivity. Like @Toadofsky said: the clock is there... you choose your time control, you live by it. Whatever someone does with his/her time is strictly their business. A hypothetical example of deliberate time wasting with which I agree is in Arena Tournaments: I am fighting for position with the person I am playing. I have 50 seconds left, tournament has 40 seconds left. I am ahead in the standings... I will not make another move and be above my opponent in the standings. (Note: I probably wouldn't do that, I also more than likely will never fight for a meaningful rank in an arena tournament :D )
#14

@Toadofsky said in #12:

I strongly disagree with Lichess policies which punish players for using their clock time. Rules and clocks exist, and with some imagination players can figure out how to set a base time plus an increment time which suits their interests.

The problem is that people wait deliberately at the end of the game, I've had people in a forced two move checkmate sequence wait 17 minutes before letting me end the game, apparently without consequences even after reporting.

@Toadofsky said in #12: > I strongly disagree with Lichess policies which punish players for using their clock time. Rules and clocks exist, and with some imagination players can figure out how to set a base time plus an increment time which suits their interests. The problem is that people wait deliberately at the end of the game, I've had people in a forced two move checkmate sequence wait 17 minutes before letting me end the game, apparently without consequences even after reporting.
#15

@lonelypeanut said in #14:

The problem is that people wait deliberately at the end of the game, I've had people in a forced two move checkmate sequence wait 17 minutes before letting me end the game, apparently without consequences even after reporting.

I'm starting to wonder if a player (and only that player) should see their rating reduced, or have their rating hidden, each time they do this. It's difficult to punish players who could have accidentally done this, but it's still a beginner move.

@lonelypeanut said in #14: > The problem is that people wait deliberately at the end of the game, I've had people in a forced two move checkmate sequence wait 17 minutes before letting me end the game, apparently without consequences even after reporting. I'm starting to wonder if a player (and only that player) should see their rating reduced, or have their rating hidden, each time they do this. It's difficult to punish players who could have accidentally done this, but it's still a beginner move.
#16

@Toadofsky said in #15:

I'm starting to wonder if a player (and only that player) should see their rating reduced each time they do this. It's difficult to punish players who could have accidentally done this, but it's still a beginner move.

I just looked it up the person had over two thousand games...

Another had me waiting 30 minutes also 500 games.

I mean it's hard to fight algorythmically I get that, maybe even unsolvable practically, but it's definitely no problem of choosing the wrong time format or impatience.

@Toadofsky said in #15: > I'm starting to wonder if a player (and only that player) should see their rating reduced each time they do this. It's difficult to punish players who could have accidentally done this, but it's still a beginner move. I just looked it up the person had over two thousand games... Another had me waiting 30 minutes also 500 games. I mean it's hard to fight algorythmically I get that, maybe even unsolvable practically, but it's definitely no problem of choosing the wrong time format or impatience.
#17

@lonelypeanut said in #16:

I mean it's hard to fight algorithmically I get that, maybe even unsolvable practically, but it's definitely no problem of choosing the wrong time format or impatience.

I'll start with where we agree: impatience isn't the primary problem, and Lichess does penalize repeat offenders (although it's hard to accurately do so).

In many previous cases of players complaining in this forum those players played without increment, as many streamers and other players frequently do. In my own games when opponents occasionally do offend, I take some solace in realizing I could be waiting much longer if I'd used a larger base time with a smaller increment, and other solace that if they're a repeat offender they will be penalized.

A next logical step could be to do something like ChessDojo and charge stakes for each serious game.

@lonelypeanut said in #16: > I mean it's hard to fight algorithmically I get that, maybe even unsolvable practically, but it's definitely no problem of choosing the wrong time format or impatience. I'll start with where we agree: impatience isn't the primary problem, and Lichess does penalize repeat offenders (although it's hard to accurately do so). In many previous cases of players complaining in this forum those players played without increment, as many streamers and other players frequently do. In my own games when opponents occasionally do offend, I take some solace in realizing I could be waiting much longer if I'd used a larger base time with a smaller increment, and other solace that if they're a repeat offender they will be penalized. A next logical step could be to do something like ChessDojo and charge stakes for each serious game.
#18

@Dintzish0r The key distinction is that over-the-board tournaments have an arbiter who can step in if a player is engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct—online platforms currently lack this oversight. If a player in an OTB setting were to sit motionless for 30+ minutes without making a move, an arbiter would intervene. The issue is not deep thinking but a refusal to engage in the game.

Yes, deep thinking and stalling may look the same on the surface, but this is why inactivity warnings already exist on LiChess. If a player is truly thinking, they can respond to the warning or demonstrate engagement in some way. The goal isn’t to penalize deep calculation but to prevent abuse—deliberately letting the clock run out with no intention of making a move is not strategic play; it’s simply poor sportsmanship.

Your example of Arena Tournaments actually supports the need for such a system. If a player is in a winning position and refuses to move just to manipulate standings, that is gaming the system rather than playing the game. Enforcing an automatic resignation in cases of prolonged inactivity would discourage such behavior and maintain the integrity of competition.

By implementing a system that aligns with FIDE’s intent under Article 6.7, LiChess would simply be ensuring that online play remains fair, just as it is in OTB settings.

@Dintzish0r The key distinction is that over-the-board tournaments have an arbiter who can step in if a player is engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct—online platforms currently lack this oversight. If a player in an OTB setting were to sit motionless for 30+ minutes without making a move, an arbiter would intervene. The issue is not deep thinking but a refusal to engage in the game. Yes, deep thinking and stalling may look the same on the surface, but this is why inactivity warnings already exist on LiChess. If a player is truly thinking, they can respond to the warning or demonstrate engagement in some way. The goal isn’t to penalize deep calculation but to prevent abuse—deliberately letting the clock run out with no intention of making a move is not strategic play; it’s simply poor sportsmanship. Your example of Arena Tournaments actually supports the need for such a system. If a player is in a winning position and refuses to move just to manipulate standings, that is gaming the system rather than playing the game. Enforcing an automatic resignation in cases of prolonged inactivity would discourage such behavior and maintain the integrity of competition. By implementing a system that aligns with FIDE’s intent under Article 6.7, LiChess would simply be ensuring that online play remains fair, just as it is in OTB settings.
#19

@Fittrader said in #7:

According to FIDE Laws of Chess...a player who does not make their required moves within the allotted time loses the game unless an arbiter decides otherwise.

The article you are referring to here is clearly article 6.9. Here is a copypasta from the website:

6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

“Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise.”

This is indeed a paraphrase of article 6.7. Here is the copypasta:

6.7 Default time:

6.7.1 The regulations of an event shall specify a default time in advance. If the default time is not specified, then it is zero. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the default time shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

6.7.2 If the regulations of an event specify that the default time is not zero and if neither player is present initially, White shall lose all the time that elapses until he/she arrives, unless the regulations of an event specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

Article 6.7 is dealing with players arriving at the board late. The word "arrive" should have clued you in...

@Fittrader said in #11:

The argument that Article 6.7 is only about losing on time in the normal course of play is misleading.

Yes, it would be, which is why I'm not making that argument. I am arguing that Article 6.9 is about losing on time after the normal course of play, which is in no wise misleading. I've put copypasta here for convenience but I invite anyone who wishes to confirm what I am saying by looking for themselves.

https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023

Meanwhile, misleading is incorrectly citing, inaccurately quoting, and confusing the interpretation of FIDE's regulations. Which is what you have done.

@Fittrader said in #7: > According to FIDE Laws of Chess...a player who does not make their required moves within the allotted time loses the game unless an arbiter decides otherwise. The article you are referring to here is clearly article 6.9. Here is a copypasta from the website: > 6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. “Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise.” This is indeed a paraphrase of article 6.7. Here is the copypasta: > 6.7 Default time: > > 6.7.1 The regulations of an event shall specify a default time in advance. If the default time is not specified, then it is zero. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the default time shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise. > > 6.7.2 If the regulations of an event specify that the default time is not zero and if neither player is present initially, White shall lose all the time that elapses until he/she arrives, unless the regulations of an event specify or the arbiter decides otherwise. Article 6.7 is dealing with players arriving at the board late. The word "arrive" should have clued you in... @Fittrader said in #11: > The argument that Article 6.7 is only about losing on time in the normal course of play is misleading. Yes, it would be, which is why I'm not making that argument. I am arguing that Article 6.9 is about losing on time after the normal course of play, which is in no wise misleading. I've put copypasta here for convenience but I invite anyone who wishes to confirm what I am saying by looking for themselves. https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023 Meanwhile, misleading is incorrectly citing, inaccurately quoting, and confusing the interpretation of FIDE's regulations. Which is what you have done.
#20

@forsoothplays Ok. You're correct that Article 6.7 primarily deals with default time and arriving at the board late, and Article 6.9 covers losing on time. However, the core of my argument isn't about mislabeling articles—it's about ensuring that online chess enforces the spirit of the rules that govern OTB play.

The FIDE Laws of Chess establish that a player must make their required moves within the allotted time (Article 6.9). What’s missing in online play is an enforcement mechanism to prevent a player from deliberately stalling without any intention to move.

The fact remains: in OTB tournaments, an arbiter can step in if a player is clearly refusing to make a move in bad faith. That’s what’s lacking online. If a player in a completely lost position refuses to move for 20+ minutes just to waste their opponent’s time, they are not "using their clock"—they are exploiting a loophole.

LiChess already warns players about inactivity, which acknowledges that this is an issue. Implementing an automatic resignation after prolonged inactivity would align online play with the standards of competitive OTB chess.

This isn’t about punishing thoughtful play. It’s about preventing abuse and respecting the time of serious players.

@forsoothplays Ok. You're correct that Article 6.7 primarily deals with default time and arriving at the board late, and Article 6.9 covers losing on time. However, the core of my argument isn't about mislabeling articles—it's about ensuring that online chess enforces the spirit of the rules that govern OTB play. The FIDE Laws of Chess establish that a player must make their required moves within the allotted time (Article 6.9). What’s missing in online play is an enforcement mechanism to prevent a player from deliberately stalling without any intention to move. The fact remains: in OTB tournaments, an arbiter can step in if a player is clearly refusing to make a move in bad faith. That’s what’s lacking online. If a player in a completely lost position refuses to move for 20+ minutes just to waste their opponent’s time, they are not "using their clock"—they are exploiting a loophole. LiChess already warns players about inactivity, which acknowledges that this is an issue. Implementing an automatic resignation after prolonged inactivity would align online play with the standards of competitive OTB chess. This isn’t about punishing thoughtful play. It’s about preventing abuse and respecting the time of serious players.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.