Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Either stop the problem with time wasters or I revoke my donations.

@pawnedge I respect where you are coming from, but I still disagree. I don't think your opponent did anything unreasonable in that game. I can't tell you how many players on lichess blitz out all their moves at every time control, not because they don't have the time to think, but because many players these days seem to believe that thinking about chess positions isn't in the spirit of the game. Anyway, I play many games against people who I would say are wasting my time by not taking the game seriously, but they certainly are within their rights to do that, as your opponent was within his rights to play the way he did.

I disagree that it must be bad time management on my part to use, say, 3 minutes on a move before move 10 in a 5 3 game (or a 5 5 game as I was playing on chess.com). If I reach a very complicated position in which I feel that making the right decision may make the difference between winning and losing then I am justified in doing that. For that matter, if I am playing not to win but to learn and build an opening repertoire, then a prolonged think early in the game may be the best thing for my purposes, even if it is not the optimal way to maximize my winning chances.

My dream is to be able to play chess against people who are good enough to give me a good game (no lack of such people on Lichess of course), to play people who aren't cheating, and to be given enough time that I can think about the game properly. The bullet and blitz psychosis that is devouring the soul of the chess world already makes this third priority hard enough to achieve; the last thing I want is to have a series of unexpected 'gotcha' rules that limit my thinking time in other ways as well.

I guess we are prioritizing different things. I understand why the game you played was annoying, but I would think that if you are having that experience all that often you should be gaining lots of rating points and moving up to a level at which people take their games more seriously.

@pawnedge I respect where you are coming from, but I still disagree. I don't think your opponent did anything unreasonable in that game. I can't tell you how many players on lichess blitz out all their moves at every time control, not because they don't have the time to think, but because many players these days seem to believe that thinking about chess positions isn't in the spirit of the game. Anyway, I play many games against people who I would say are wasting my time by not taking the game seriously, but they certainly are within their rights to do that, as your opponent was within his rights to play the way he did. I disagree that it must be bad time management on my part to use, say, 3 minutes on a move before move 10 in a 5 3 game (or a 5 5 game as I was playing on chess.com). If I reach a very complicated position in which I feel that making the right decision may make the difference between winning and losing then I am justified in doing that. For that matter, if I am playing not to win but to learn and build an opening repertoire, then a prolonged think early in the game may be the best thing for my purposes, even if it is not the optimal way to maximize my winning chances. My dream is to be able to play chess against people who are good enough to give me a good game (no lack of such people on Lichess of course), to play people who aren't cheating, and to be given enough time that I can think about the game properly. The bullet and blitz psychosis that is devouring the soul of the chess world already makes this third priority hard enough to achieve; the last thing I want is to have a series of unexpected 'gotcha' rules that limit my thinking time in other ways as well. I guess we are prioritizing different things. I understand why the game you played was annoying, but I would think that if you are having that experience all that often you should be gaining lots of rating points and moving up to a level at which people take their games more seriously.

I mined data for classical rated games and I conclude:

  • Percentage of disconnection or "time waste" as a percentage of all rated classical games is steady at ~11%.
  • Overall rate of disconnection/timeout is decreasing.
  • Percentage of timeouts due to normal time usage (non-disconnect, non-"time waste") is decreasing.

Nov. 2017: 240451 rated classical games were played.

  • 13% = 30K were decided by disconnection or timeout
  • 89% of those 13% (11% overall) = 27K were decided with more than 8% of the estimated game time remaining

Nov. 2018: 983432 rated classical games were played.

  • 12% = 120K were decided by disconnection or timeout
  • 93% of those 12% (12% overall) = 113K were decided with more than 8% of the estimated game time remaining

Nov. 2019: 1331901 rated classical games were played.

  • 11% = 150K were decided by disconnection or timeout
  • 92% of those 11% (10% overall) = 140K were decided with more than 8% of the estimated game time remaining
I mined data for classical rated games and I conclude: * Percentage of disconnection or "time waste" as a percentage of all rated classical games is steady at ~11%. * Overall rate of disconnection/timeout is decreasing. * Percentage of timeouts due to normal time usage (non-disconnect, non-"time waste") is decreasing. Nov. 2017: 240451 rated classical games were played. * 13% = 30K were decided by disconnection or timeout * 89% of those 13% (11% overall) = 27K were decided with more than 8% of the estimated game time remaining Nov. 2018: 983432 rated classical games were played. * 12% = 120K were decided by disconnection or timeout * 93% of those 12% (12% overall) = 113K were decided with more than 8% of the estimated game time remaining Nov. 2019: 1331901 rated classical games were played. * 11% = 150K were decided by disconnection or timeout * 92% of those 11% (10% overall) = 140K were decided with more than 8% of the estimated game time remaining

#62,

10% of all games on the site? That's quite a lot! More than I expected, in fact. But one wonders: what's the ratio for games where the time waster's rating is <2k? Or <1.5k? No doubt it's even higher.

And that's only rated games. The problem persists in casual games, and (in my experience) is worst in anonymous games (though I suppose that's to be expected). I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than a quarter of those. But I'm curious to see the actual figures, if and when you assess them. Thanks for keeping us apprised.

#62, >10% of all games on the site? That's quite a lot! More than I expected, in fact. But one wonders: what's the ratio for games where the time waster's rating is <2k? Or <1.5k? No doubt it's even higher. And that's only rated games. The problem persists in casual games, and (in my experience) is worst in anonymous games (though I suppose that's to be expected). I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than a quarter of those. But I'm curious to see the actual figures, if and when you assess them. Thanks for keeping us apprised.

11% of all games?!! Wow

11% of all games?!! Wow

89% of all games?! woW. can't tell if that's a lot or not. any referential. isn't lichess an isolated phenomenon, with not much to compare with. is it comparable to others, and do others publicise their metrics openly?

89% of all games?! woW. can't tell if that's a lot or not. any referential. isn't lichess an isolated phenomenon, with not much to compare with. is it comparable to others, and do others publicise their metrics openly?

#63 I have no idea. I've hastily written some code but if anyone else could take over this project (Rust is great for systems, less great for applications, still less great if you're bad at it like I am) I'd appreciate it...
https://github.com/ddugovic/rust-pgn-reader

Here's some randomly sampled output, parsing WhiteElo and BlackElo, where ! indicates a game w/o comment "White/Black left the game." I have no idea whether disconnections always or sometimes result in that comment...
15+ 15 (t=125): !welo=1500 wtime= 1204 wlast= 7 belo=1673 btime= 791 blast= 3 turns= 98
15+ 15 (t=125): welo=1238 wtime= 917 wlast= 13 !belo=1125 btime= 675 blast= 7 turns= 41

#63 I have no idea. I've hastily written some code but if anyone else could take over this project (Rust is great for systems, less great for applications, still less great if you're bad at it like I am) I'd appreciate it... https://github.com/ddugovic/rust-pgn-reader Here's some randomly sampled output, parsing WhiteElo and BlackElo, where ! indicates a game w/o comment "White/Black left the game." I have no idea whether disconnections always or sometimes result in that comment... 15+ 15 (t=125): !welo=1500 wtime= 1204 wlast= 7 belo=1673 btime= 791 blast= 3 turns= 98 15+ 15 (t=125): welo=1238 wtime= 917 wlast= 13 !belo=1125 btime= 675 blast= 7 turns= 41

There is a very elegant and simple solution that can be used here which ICC implemented when I played there.

A no escape feature function. During game creation you enable a checkbox for "No Escape", and you game gets 20-30 seconds for disconnection, that's it. If you leave you lose rating points. This removes rage quitters from the equation completely.

The people with bad internet keep the option disabled and are automatically paired with the same, so you can't complain about unfairness.

I don't understand why this is such a magnificently complicated problem when the solution is so simple?

There is a very elegant and simple solution that can be used here which ICC implemented when I played there. A no escape feature function. During game creation you enable a checkbox for "No Escape", and you game gets 20-30 seconds for disconnection, that's it. If you leave you lose rating points. This removes rage quitters from the equation completely. The people with bad internet keep the option disabled and are automatically paired with the same, so you can't complain about unfairness. I don't understand why this is such a magnificently complicated problem when the solution is so simple?

#67 Would the default setting be "enabled" or "disabled"? What if a person plays Lichess from places other than home and frequently needs to toggle the setting? What if this splits the player pool and it becomes difficult to find games?

#67 Would the default setting be "enabled" or "disabled"? What if a person plays Lichess from places other than home and frequently needs to toggle the setting? What if this splits the player pool and it becomes difficult to find games?

Hi, if it is a checkbox it is simply an option. It is not enabled by default. It is an option during game creation.

Checkbox No Escape _/ 30 seconds

This avoids people crying about default settings and unfairness. I see this as a perfect fix. The GitHub reply seems to disregard the huge benefit by saying their will be a pool split. I don't see the problem. In the end 90% will check the box because it works and solves the outrage people are experiencing. The people that have bad internet can leave it unchecked and be paired with others that want to disconnect all day long. If they have to now wait longer to be paired because of that setting so be it. Why should everyone else be inconvenienced due to their technical difficulties.
Elegant fix IMHO.

Hi, if it is a checkbox it is simply an option. It is not enabled by default. It is an option during game creation. Checkbox No Escape _/ 30 seconds This avoids people crying about default settings and unfairness. I see this as a perfect fix. The GitHub reply seems to disregard the huge benefit by saying their will be a pool split. I don't see the problem. In the end 90% will check the box because it works and solves the outrage people are experiencing. The people that have bad internet can leave it unchecked and be paired with others that want to disconnect all day long. If they have to now wait longer to be paired because of that setting so be it. Why should everyone else be inconvenienced due to their technical difficulties. Elegant fix IMHO.

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