how about reporting @lichess ?
Me parece que o Lichess usa outros critérios além do tempo. O problema é que muita gente tava abusando disso, o cara simplesmente larga o jogo e tchau. Aí você tem que esperar o relógio correr, enquanto o camaradinha vaza do jogo. Eu uso isso aqui desde 2014, o site só tem melhorado, acho que é só um aviso pra botar um apavoro nesse pessoal. Se você usa o tempo normalmente, acho que nem pega nada.
wait. If you had less than 10 seconds than you shouldn't have got the warning after the timeout because you only get that warning when you have more than 10 seconds and run out of time. Maybe a lichess glitch
Dear @clousems, this forum is called Lichess Feedback precisely because I think it's the appropriate place to give Lichess feedback. I'm not making an appeal to Lichess. I am reporting a fact that I believe should be better clarified and dealt with. I didn't get an "automatic warning from a non-human entity reminding/warning that it's not acceptable to waste time in an online chess game", I got a banishment threat if I didn't give up and let time pass through a system designed by human beings. to act this way. I didn't feel prejudiced by the warning, I'm still playing, I like the platform a lot, I have esteem for free software, and I'm fully aware that Lichess can ban me even for no reason. It is your right.
So my interest in this question is to provide Lichess with feedback (in this case, mine!) about a situation that, in my opinion, should be handled differently and that incurs in two errors: the lack of criteria to define what is stalling of fact and the way to threaten the chess player saying that he should give up for a supposed, or not, abuse of time. Remembering that if each one receives a time to play, that time belongs to the chess player, otherwise, define it differently or establish clear criteria on how to monitor his time, which will no longer be his, in the end.
So my interest in this question is to provide Lichess with feedback (in this case, mine!) about a situation that, in my opinion, should be handled differently and that incurs in two errors: the lack of criteria to define what is stalling of fact and the way to threaten the chess player saying that he should give up for a supposed, or not, abuse of time. Remembering that if each one receives a time to play, that time belongs to the chess player, otherwise, define it differently or establish clear criteria on how to monitor his time, which will no longer be his, in the end.
it is lichess' responsibility to say that letting time run leads to temporary ban. Think from your opponent's point of view once. How annoying and embarrassed would he be when you let your time runs out.
@chessster21 I'll try to answer both messages here. First I imagine this forum would be the appropriate place to inform Lichess about the issue. But I thought the suggestion was good and will send a report to @lichess.
Regarding what happened, regardless of whether it was a Lichess failure or not, the fact is that there needs to be a clear criterion for chess players that certain procedures characterize stalling and, I repeat, under no circumstances can a chess player be forced to give up threatening him with banishment (even temporary). My purpose is that Lichess, which seeks to continuously improve itself, realizes this and establishes more adequate criteria and procedures because worse than not punishing a cheater is punishing someone unfairly.
Regarding what happened, regardless of whether it was a Lichess failure or not, the fact is that there needs to be a clear criterion for chess players that certain procedures characterize stalling and, I repeat, under no circumstances can a chess player be forced to give up threatening him with banishment (even temporary). My purpose is that Lichess, which seeks to continuously improve itself, realizes this and establishes more adequate criteria and procedures because worse than not punishing a cheater is punishing someone unfairly.
@gabrr82 Interessante essa visão que seja só para intimidar. Mesmo assim não é uma boa maneira de lidar com isso. Era uma blitz de 5+3, não faz sentido. Jogo com vários enxadristas que as vezes passam pela mesma situação que eu passei, o tempo cai num mate iminente, não me incomodo com isso. Tenho jogado torneios com amigos que eventualmente tem que abandonar a partida e não desistem... as vezes nem aparecem.... e eu compreendo. Um enxadrista que costuma fazer isso frequentemente pode ser facilmente percebido e ser advertido, punido e até banido. Se isso começar a ocorrer com frequência, tipo um ataque de hacker, aí o Lichess tem que desenvolver mecanismos para defender-se, mas não mandar esse tipo de aviso, naquelas circunstâncias e ainda dizendo que eu devo desistir senão serei punido. Se quiser estabelecer um controle mais rígido de tempo tudo bem, mas desde que deixe claro para os enxadristas qual o critério está sendo usado.
@infinite2009 If Lichess had the capacity for that, I would agree with you, but unfortunately (or fortunately!) it doesn't. It has no ability to judge whether a chess player is deliberately letting time pass. It uses algorithms and probably statistical criteria to make this assessmenth and works within a margin of error. My proposal is that you use another approach as it may be discouraging chess players who feel pressured in a game and are slow to respond. Even more so with the threat of banishment. It doesn't seem like the right way to handle it. If it is intended to establish control over the time of each one, the criteria must be clearly defined. Trying to outsmart the smart ones doesn't seem to me to be a mathematically (or algorithmically) possible solution.
Boy do you like typing!
If lichess does remove this warning, people may let time run out. Your proposal should be that :
If a person has less than 30 seconds and time runs out, he shouldn't be getting this warning or this warning shouldn't be applicable for blitz bullet and ultrabullet. In classical 45 + 45, if a person lets time run out and doesn't get the warning, people will give bad feedback to lichess.
Edit: #36 I was actually joking about reporting @lichess to @lichess. lol
If a person has less than 30 seconds and time runs out, he shouldn't be getting this warning or this warning shouldn't be applicable for blitz bullet and ultrabullet. In classical 45 + 45, if a person lets time run out and doesn't get the warning, people will give bad feedback to lichess.
Edit: #36 I was actually joking about reporting @lichess to @lichess. lol
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.