Provide a limit for time to play each move. When you play say at 25 minutes and the other player realize that he is lost. He stop playing and then you have to wait the rest of the time. If you provide this as an OPTION that the one that create the game use or not. Please think about it. It would make playing here more pleasurable.
Just choose a time control of say 0 and 30 seconds.
i agree with roivra. If you don't want to play a potential (sorry) retard, who ragequits, then play fast chess. Just block them afterwards if they do just quit.
Wouldn't be chess if you didn't have as long as you wanted on a move.
Wouldn't be chess if you didn't have as long as you wanted on a move.
Please!!!...is an OPTION you can use it or NOT. Read what I wrote.
yes we know, but there is no reason to provide an option if there is a "fix" to it. Block the player if they do waste their time.
Being an option, it would not fix anything because you can't enforce it on the other players... it will just result in you game challenges being filtered out from the lobby list (just like most people skip the "forced color" challenges)
Not to mention the fact that it will require also a UI change, since, just like the forced color mentioned above, you need to notify the other players that your game has different rules.
Not to mention the fact that it will require also a UI change, since, just like the forced color mentioned above, you need to notify the other players that your game has different rules.
I must admit that I do not agree with some of the above comments.
To say that a time limit per move would no longer be "Chess" makes no sense: what is blitz, bullet, etc., which by definition limit the time of moves (in a 3+0, I can't think 4 minutes, no?). And what about extra seconds each time? Vast debate: but which shows that managing time is not new to chess.
So a time limit "per move" is compatible with the spirit of what already exists in the world of chess.
Saying that it can't work on Lichess because the opponent should also choose the option doesn't make any more sense. Because that's what the filter is for, just as you can choose, or not, the "rated" game option.
So such a filter option would not be different from the others, once people know and use it.
One may not agree with this option, but I am not convinced by the reasons given by those who oppose it.
For my part, I would approve of this option, because it would limit these bad behaviours, which are very frequent.
This option would also allow to play quickly but without global time limit, which does not seem to me farther from the spirit of chess than games in limited time.
The technical problem is, perhaps, that this option would penalize people with a poor connection. Currently, Lichess is waiting a while for the connection to be restored, in order to continue the game. I suppose it is impossible to make the difference with a voluntary disconnection. But there is a solution: people with a poor connection could choose not to use this option.
In short, neither the spirit of chess nor the technique is against Lichess offering such an option. The question remains as to whether it is interesting, I think so, but it is only by trying that we will have the answer.
To say that a time limit per move would no longer be "Chess" makes no sense: what is blitz, bullet, etc., which by definition limit the time of moves (in a 3+0, I can't think 4 minutes, no?). And what about extra seconds each time? Vast debate: but which shows that managing time is not new to chess.
So a time limit "per move" is compatible with the spirit of what already exists in the world of chess.
Saying that it can't work on Lichess because the opponent should also choose the option doesn't make any more sense. Because that's what the filter is for, just as you can choose, or not, the "rated" game option.
So such a filter option would not be different from the others, once people know and use it.
One may not agree with this option, but I am not convinced by the reasons given by those who oppose it.
For my part, I would approve of this option, because it would limit these bad behaviours, which are very frequent.
This option would also allow to play quickly but without global time limit, which does not seem to me farther from the spirit of chess than games in limited time.
The technical problem is, perhaps, that this option would penalize people with a poor connection. Currently, Lichess is waiting a while for the connection to be restored, in order to continue the game. I suppose it is impossible to make the difference with a voluntary disconnection. But there is a solution: people with a poor connection could choose not to use this option.
In short, neither the spirit of chess nor the technique is against Lichess offering such an option. The question remains as to whether it is interesting, I think so, but it is only by trying that we will have the answer.
@PhilippeC All your examples, both online and in the real world, deal with time management *of the entire game*, not on a single move basis... case in point, all of them require the display of a *single* time counter, which is the time you have left for the rest of the game/the 40 move time control if it is applied. Also, a big, if not essential, part of time management is also being free to allocate a variable amount of time for moves at different stages of the game
There is no common usage of chess on a move time basis except for correspondence chess, which is not part of this conversation, and there are certainly no examples of commonly played games which require two different countdown clocks (the global time, and the additional move time, which is what you are proposing here)
There's nothing inherently wrong in playing chess on "move clock" instead of "game clock", it's the mixing of the two as a simple option that I don't like and is also ineffective in avoiding the "quitter's problem"... all it does, is creating another set of additional time controls (15+0+limit, 15+0+no limit, 15+15+limit ecc... asking both players to accept that option is functionally equivalent to asking to play at different time control), which does nothing but segmentate the player's base even more into tiny little pools
So, you either force the limit always, which I really hate it on Chess.com (they have that kind of hidden timer, because, let's face it, it's easier to accomodate any kind of whine as long as the users are paying), or otherwise it's useless as a voluntary option
There is no common usage of chess on a move time basis except for correspondence chess, which is not part of this conversation, and there are certainly no examples of commonly played games which require two different countdown clocks (the global time, and the additional move time, which is what you are proposing here)
There's nothing inherently wrong in playing chess on "move clock" instead of "game clock", it's the mixing of the two as a simple option that I don't like and is also ineffective in avoiding the "quitter's problem"... all it does, is creating another set of additional time controls (15+0+limit, 15+0+no limit, 15+15+limit ecc... asking both players to accept that option is functionally equivalent to asking to play at different time control), which does nothing but segmentate the player's base even more into tiny little pools
So, you either force the limit always, which I really hate it on Chess.com (they have that kind of hidden timer, because, let's face it, it's easier to accomodate any kind of whine as long as the users are paying), or otherwise it's useless as a voluntary option
#1 It's true that shogi and similar games do use a clock like what you propose. Options which partition the player pools will reduce pairing speed and quality, technical issues notwithstanding.
I suggest maybe instead of playing 25+0, in 15+15 an opponent who is lost will realize they cannot flag you and will be more willing to resign.
I suggest maybe instead of playing 25+0, in 15+15 an opponent who is lost will realize they cannot flag you and will be more willing to resign.
Hi, other suggestion is add seconds not used in last move to next move. About conection problems, system can hidde the pieces on the board while conections is established, or clarify that this game mode is recomended only to user with good conection.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.