What is stalling? • page 1/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Edit: I was white. Some people seemed to think I was black, so I thought I'd point it out.

An opponent I just played against accused me of stalling, but I don't really know what it means. A post defines it as "Stalling: Intentionally disconnecting or stopping to play when the position is disadvantageous." (https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/should-stalling-be-punishable)

But I did not disconnect or stop playing. Is it stalling if I take a bit longer to think? One of the reasons I play Chess, is to improve my concentration. Does that make my play reportable, as I take a bit longer? Also, I had 3 .5 min left and my opponent 5 min, with me having +8 material. This makes me feel like accusing me was more meant to throw me off or something, rather than an honest complaint.

The game in question is this:

https://lichess.org/ZJ2SYj27xnbC

I am aware my response in the game chat may have been a bit bitchy, but I was quite suddenly accused of something I'd never heard of. If they had told me what I did wrong, I would have been kind and gladly corrected myself.

Any feedback is welcome, I just want to understand what happened

Edit: I was white. Some people seemed to think I was black, so I thought I'd point it out. An opponent I just played against accused me of stalling, but I don't really know what it means. A post defines it as "Stalling: Intentionally disconnecting or stopping to play when the position is disadvantageous." (https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/should-stalling-be-punishable) But I did not disconnect or stop playing. Is it stalling if I take a bit longer to think? One of the reasons I play Chess, is to improve my concentration. Does that make my play reportable, as I take a bit longer? Also, I had 3 .5 min left and my opponent 5 min, with me having +8 material. This makes me feel like accusing me was more meant to throw me off or something, rather than an honest complaint. The game in question is this: https://lichess.org/ZJ2SYj27xnbC I am aware my response in the game chat may have been a bit bitchy, but I was quite suddenly accused of something I'd never heard of. If they had told me what I did wrong, I would have been kind and gladly corrected myself. Any feedback is welcome, I just want to understand what happened

mkubecek

I wouldn't think too much of it. Some people on lichess tend to believe that almost anything their opponent does (or doesn't) is meant to offend them. It may be playing too slow, playing too fast, asking for a rematch, not accepting a rematch request, offering a draw, resigning too early, resigning too late, not resigning at all, talking too much in the game chat, not talking at all, ... Most of the time it says more about the person who feels offended than about the person accused of offending them.

In this particular case, you might have resigned earlier but that's completely up to you. Thinking for 42s in a 10 minutes game to decide if it's really time to resign doesn't seem unreasonable to me. To be honest, I suspect your opponent was rather annoyed that you played on for so long than by that last 42s wait.

I wouldn't think too much of it. Some people on lichess tend to believe that almost anything their opponent does (or doesn't) is meant to offend them. It may be playing too slow, playing too fast, asking for a rematch, not accepting a rematch request, offering a draw, resigning too early, resigning too late, not resigning at all, talking too much in the game chat, not talking at all, ... Most of the time it says more about the person who feels offended than about the person accused of offending them. In this particular case, you might have resigned earlier but that's completely up to you. Thinking for 42s in a 10 minutes game to decide if it's really time to resign doesn't seem unreasonable to me. To be honest, I suspect your opponent was rather annoyed that you played on for so long than by that last 42s wait.

Cedur216

In such a clear position, there is absolutely no reason to think for the eternity of 40 seconds before you finally resign. It's ok if you refuse to resign, but then you should play fast and not waste more time than necessary. I also don't think that in the final position you could look for any stalemate hopes.

mkubecek

As a classic says, the purpose of opinions is to differ. :-)

Witchling

@Cedur216 said in #3:

In such a clear position, there is absolutely no reason to think for the eternity of 40 seconds before you finally resign. It's ok if you refuse to resign, but then you should play fast and not waste more time than necessary. I also don't think that in the final position you could look for any stalemate hopes.

Why would I look for stalemate? I had the material advantage as white, so I would rather just checkmate the opponent.

@Cedur216 said in #3: > In such a clear position, there is absolutely no reason to think for the eternity of 40 seconds before you finally resign. It's ok if you refuse to resign, but then you should play fast and not waste more time than necessary. I also don't think that in the final position you could look for any stalemate hopes. Why would I look for stalemate? I had the material advantage as white, so I would rather just checkmate the opponent.

Cedur216

edited

wait lol. I just see it was the winner of this game writing this and not the loser.

So, the loser was stalling himself at the end, but before he accused you of stalling? When exactly did he accuse you?

wait lol. I just see it was the winner of this game writing this and not the loser. So, the loser was stalling himself at the end, but before he accused you of stalling? When exactly did he accuse you?

Witchling

As there seems to be some miscommunication: I was white and had the utter material advantage. I will edit the original post to clarify.

@mkubecek said in #2:

In this particular case, you might have resigned earlier but that's completely up to you. Thinking for 42s in a 10 minutes game to decide if it's really time to resign doesn't seem unreasonable to me. To be honest, I suspect your opponent was rather annoyed that you played on for so long than by that last 42s wait.

That's a problem for me: through the years I've learned to salvage bad situations and win, which is not standard practice in Chess

As there seems to be some miscommunication: I was white and had the utter material advantage. I will edit the original post to clarify. @mkubecek said in #2: > In this particular case, you might have resigned earlier but that's completely up to you. Thinking for 42s in a 10 minutes game to decide if it's really time to resign doesn't seem unreasonable to me. To be honest, I suspect your opponent was rather annoyed that you played on for so long than by that last 42s wait. That's a problem for me: through the years I've learned to salvage bad situations and win, which is not standard practice in Chess

Witchling edited

Edit: @Cedur216

Honestly, I don't know. But it was somewhere in the beginning, I guess between move 10 and 15?

Edit: @Cedur216 Honestly, I don't know. But it was somewhere in the beginning, I guess between move 10 and 15?

mkubecek

I also thought you were black. If you were white, it makes absolutely no sense.

Witchling

@mkubecek said in #9:

I also thought you were black. If you were white, it makes absolutely no sense.

Huh, weird. Maybe some weird psychological games or so. Or just someone who can't stand losing?

In either case, could someone tell me stalling is? Or does the definition I sourced above cover it wholly?

@mkubecek said in #9: > I also thought you were black. If you were white, it makes absolutely no sense. Huh, weird. Maybe some weird psychological games or so. Or just someone who can't stand losing? In either case, could someone tell me stalling is? Or does the definition I sourced above cover it wholly?