i think there could be a system where other people could vote for stallers to resign games. like someone posts a game where he's abstractly won but the opponent decides to continue to the very last move and people could decide to force the opponent to resign like at least 80% of 200 votes or something. should discourage people from playing till checkmate. i don't mean like arguably won positions but like king and rook vs lone king i don't think theres a reason to continue playing.
I think you would struggle to find 200 players willing to spend their time voting on this type of position.
This has been discussed before. You are playing correspondence chess - there is nothing in the terms to stop a player playing out the game to the bitter end.
It is frustrating I agree, but in the big scheme of things not a massive deal.
If someone is playing within your agreed time out terms then the player is not stalling. He may be taking his time, but you agreed to those times in the first place so it's unfair to expect the player to rush the game through later, or even to resign. Not everyone will resign a lost position, it's up to them, things can be learnt in the end game.
So basically, I think a no to this idea. Chess is a two player game, not two players and a commitee.
Originally posted by DfthdWHOA! A game is a contract between two players and the rules are agreed upon before the game begins. NOBODY outside of the two players have any right to say or do anything about the game as it progresses. Even the TD can't do anything unless the contract has been violated.
i think there could be a system where other people could vote for stallers to resign games. like someone posts a game where he's abstractly won but the opponent decides to continue to the very last move and people could decide to force the opponent to resign like at least 80% of 200 votes or something. should discourage people from playing till checkmate. i d ...[text shortened]... sitions but like king and rook vs lone king i don't think theres a reason to continue playing.
Originally posted by DfthdIf you don't like "stalling" then you should only agree to play 1 or 3 day T/O games with no timebank. This is correspondence chess and is designed to be played with patience.
i think there could be a system where other people could vote for stallers to resign games. like someone posts a game where he's abstractly won but the opponent decides to continue to the very last move and people could decide to force the opponent to resign like at least 80% of 200 votes or something. should discourage people from playing till checkmate. i d ...[text shortened]... sitions but like king and rook vs lone king i don't think theres a reason to continue playing.
Originally posted by darvlayto avoid stallers ... use short timeouts.
If you don't like "stalling" then you should only agree to play 1 or 3 day T/O games with no timebank. This is correspondence chess and is designed to be played with patience.
you must still use a long timebank ... the staller can only use it up one time ... and you can have a safe holiday without the staller suddenly claiming a win.
if you choose zero timebank, then the staller will end up winning the game when you take a holiday.
Originally posted by DfthdWhy not simply have the more active games appear on top of our list
i think there could be a system where other people could vote for stallers to resign games. like someone posts a game where he's abstractly won but the opponent decides to continue to the very last move and people could decide to force the opponent to resign like at least 80% of 200 votes or something. should discourage people from playing till checkmate. i d ...[text shortened]... sitions but like king and rook vs lone king i don't think theres a reason to continue playing.
of games? If someone is a slow mover thier games drift to the bottom
of your game list and you simply only see the name of that person
when they move. This isn't like a live over the board timed game,
it is more like a postal game. The only time I see delaying the game
an issue is when it slows up a tournament, beyond that it isn't really
an issues outside of sometimes delaying some points we are going
to get by winning a won game.
Kelly
Originally posted by arrakisHa ha ha... that's nothing.
You think you have a problem with your oopnent's stalling!! Check out his game!
Game 767259
Game 830047
Originally posted by derek9037Well, I do have the option of simply taking all his pawns, moving 3 pawns in and promote them to 3 knights, put my queen in a corner and mate him with king and 3 knights! 🙂
Ha ha ha... that's nothing.
Game 830047
I think its annoying when you have mate in three four moves and its inevitable and the player obviously cannot miss it! Then all of a sudden dissapear for the timeout, and them move with a couple hours left, and do the same till mate, just a waste of time. Especially if your like me and only have 6 games.
Originally posted by ItsYouThatIAdoreWell play 7 games, and keep that person's name in mind to never
I think its annoying when you have mate in three four moves and its inevitable and the player obviously cannot miss it! Then all of a sudden dissapear for the timeout, and them move with a couple hours left, and do the same till mate, just a waste of time. Especially if your like me and only have 6 games.
play again. I agree it is a waist of time, but it is their time and if you
have a computer problem that keeps you away from here, you may
lose even those games if they can out wait you. It is simply part of
the game on line.
Kelly
Originally posted by arrakisWhat's really annoying is we played two games. They were played at a fast pace, in good spirit (at least by me) and I lost one. But as soon as I got the advantage in the second game he starts moving every 2-3 days. Now I have mate in one and he hasn't moved since 2nd Feb!!
Well, I do have the option of simply taking all his pawns, moving 3 pawns in and promote them to 3 knights, put my queen in a corner and mate him with king and 3 knights! 🙂