Allowing "clock" to run

[angellionel]

I'm fairly new here, just joining this past October. I've noticed that quite a few individuals will not make a move once they have reached a lost position, preferring instead, it seems, to let their time run out. Also, others continue to play in what is very obviously a lost game, akin to what a beginner would do.

Have many here experienced such annoyances?

This is not intended to be a complaint, but rather an observation. Such annoyances can be reduced over time by simply not playing with those individuals in future games or matches. However, it still does take away some of the fun of playing.

Any thoughts or observations are appreciated.

ALV

[echamberlain]

I have had three players time out games against me on this site. Only one did so in positions where I felt he might have resigned. I have had similar experiences on other sites where I have played correspondence chess.

I have noted that if players complain about slow movement in positions where the opponents are clarly lost, Greg will take away much of the losing player's accumulated time. This is the only site where I have felt that there was any action taken against people who have inappropriate time outs. I think it would be nice if players who had excessive numbers of time outs had limits placed on their numbers of concurrent games, particularly if their games were not timed out due to understandable reasons. The problem is how to do this fairly and without excessive time spent on arbitration.

[angellionel]

Thanks for your comments, echamberlain. This is the only site where I have played "correspondence chess", so I don't have much of a basis for comparison. Still, in going over some of the games being played here, as well as my own limited experience in my games, I have noticed a tendency by some to hold off making a move once they reach a clearly lost position, and if they do make a move, they tend to be far and between.

I'm not sure if there really is a solution, other than what I had mentioned in my earlier post, that is, refuse to play those who adhere to this practice. This, of course, assumes that there is indeed a problem. In any event, I think your suggestion on placing limits on concurrent games is an interesting one.

ALV

[acindaz]

Great example: someone called REDROOK used to make a great number of moves per day in our games, but he's not moving for 2 weeks now - since he got a lost position. In a game g1104624750 he is just going to recieve checkmate on the next move; in a game g1104624751 he's just got a hopeless position. I was going to celebrate 2 victories , but now I have to wait for it for quite a long time
(Nothing personal, it was just an example).

[vladislavk]

I've played several games against redrook. He always plays everything out to mate.