ICS: Lag-flagging should be treated as abuse.
Eric S. Perlman
nefarious monster known as lag. Occasionally, it bites every user of
ICS, causing his or her line to go dead for several minutes at a
time. This usually -- 90% of the time -- happens without warning, and
reasonably often affects only a few users at a time.
Many users take advantage of situations where their opponents suddenly
get lag and lose time to call their flag. It is my belief, as an
experienced tournament director, who was also one of ICS's first users
(I began playing on the ICS within two weeks after its creation), that
this practice is cheating. It is every bit as much abuse as the
practice of quitting (e.g. logging off) the ICS when you have a lost
position (which practice is now recognized as abuse, and punished as
such by the admins).
IMHO, the only ethical position is that lag-flagging must be treated in
*EXACTLY* the same fashion as logging off in a lost position (commonly
called abuse). I suggest the following code of conduct which applies
both to the lagee (e.g. the person actually suffering from lag) and
his/her opponent:
1. It is the lagee's responsibility to (if possible) notify his/her
opponent he/she has lag.
2. If the lagee notifies the opponent that he/she is suffering from
lag, the opponent has four options: the game may either be agreed
drawn, adjourned, or aborted; or it may be continued.
3. If the game is continued, the opponent (e.g. the one who did NOT
suffer from the lag) has the absolute moral obligation to make an
allowance for the lag by not calling the lagee's flag. (this, in
particular, has happened to me three times in the last month; in two of
the three cases I had a completely won position and in the third a
probable draw).
4. In a blitz game, particularly with time limits faster than about 7 0,
the lagee should specifically request either a draw, adjournment, or a
courtesyabort.
5. If a person *KNOWS* he/she is currently suffering from lag, he/she
should put such a notice in their stats and avoid blitz play.
I would like to see this code, or one reasonably close to it, put into
practice by the admins. In the case of a provable case of lagflagging,
I suggest the following penalties be applied:
1. Immediate reversal of the loss (i.e. the person who called the flag
is awarded a loss; the lagee, a win), or complete excisement of the game
from both records (the former should only be used for repeat offenders)
2. Placement of the lag-flagger on the abusers' list. This step should
be mandatory.
Many people are aware that lately I've been agitating for such a policy
through shouts. Given the response I think that at a minimum 80% of
the ics public agree that lag-flagging is slimy, abusive behavior. A
few players (notably Vision) believe it is perfectly defensible, indeed
advisable behavior. These players, in my view, need to seriously
reexamine their values (or get some -- for I believe they may have none).
I have had two extensive conversations with sveshi, the Admin in charge
of ethical issues on ICS. Sveshi seems to favor some kind of a policy
on lag-flagging but only if a verification mechanism is implemented
which allows the Admins to check for fraud and the like. I would agree
with this need. I would therefore like to throw this topic open to the
rec.games.chess public on the following three points:
1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
Thank you for your time.
Eric S. Perlman
per...@giskard.colorado.edu
perlman on ICS
--
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.colorado.edu>
Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
T. M. Cuffel
Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
In general, yes.
>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
Right now, none. Although I think lag-flagging is somewhat unethical, I
can appreciate the other point of view. You accept that risk by playing
with short controls, and it is not your opponent's fault if you lag.
At this point all we have is a difference of opinion. The first step
is for the admins to adopt an official stance against it. If the problem
still persists, then other action may be necessary. Bear in mind also that
even if we do nothing, all that is lost is some unofficial rating points.
>3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
>of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
I think the biggest problem is identifying lag flagging in the first place.
Even short bursts of lag could mean the difference in a typical blitz game.
If I am in time trouble too, I may not have the luxury of checking to
see if you have lagged.
Let's say you warn me that you are lagging. I am a nice guy, and don't want
to take advantage, but what does this entail? Never flagging you? Giving
you a little extra leeway? Both of these put me at a disadvantage with
short time controls, and hurt the integrity of the clock, especially with
increments that allow your flag to "unfall".
Except in the most extreme cases, I do not think it is possible to verify
lag-flagging. We can set guidelines, and hope people will follow them, but
enforcing them is bound to be more of a headache than the problem itself.
Eric S. Perlman
>In article <2qrkt7$m...@lace.colorado.edu>,
>Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>
>>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
>
>In general, yes.
>
>>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
>
>Right now, none. Although I think lag-flagging is somewhat unethical, I
>can appreciate the other point of view. You accept that risk by playing
>with short controls, and it is not your opponent's fault if you lag.
How does this help me to appreciate the other point of view? If you
don't know your opponent is lagging you may have some excuse. If you
know your opponent is lagging I don't see how you have any excuse
whatsoever.
>At this point all we have is a difference of opinion. The first step
>is for the admins to adopt an official stance against it. If the problem
>still persists, then other action may be necessary. Bear in mind also that
>even if we do nothing, all that is lost is some unofficial rating points.
Yes and no. What is also tarnished is the reputation of the ICS in
general, as it will be seen as promoting an unethical practice.
>>3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
>>of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
>
>I think the biggest problem is identifying lag flagging in the first place.
>Even short bursts of lag could mean the difference in a typical blitz game.
>If I am in time trouble too, I may not have the luxury of checking to
>see if you have lagged.
Certainly. In short blitz games, (particularly <7 0 or so) I think
you'd better be darned sure you aren't having lag right then. And if
your opponent didn't know you had lag, I would accept this as an honest
mistake, and let bygones be bygones.
>Let's say you warn me that you are lagging. I am a nice guy, and don't want
>to take advantage, but what does this entail? Never flagging you? Giving
>you a little extra leeway? Both of these put me at a disadvantage with
>short time controls, and hurt the integrity of the clock, especially with
>increments that allow your flag to "unfall".
In a blitz game, I would seriously advise either a courtesyabort, an
adjournment, or agreement to a draw (see my "code proposal").
Otherwise, I would advise giving a reasonable leeway (with reasonable
being dictated by how much lag the person has).
>Except in the most extreme cases, I do not think it is possible to verify
>lag-flagging. We can set guidelines, and hope people will follow them, but
>enforcing them is bound to be more of a headache than the problem itself.
I don't know whether it is, and I am certainly no computer expert. But
I think the need is urgent, and that several players gleefully and
unfairly take advantage of the situation whenever possible to gain
rating points. If it is possible, I feel a policy must be implemented.
Andy McFarland
: 3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
: of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
The ICS software should be aware of lag and not charge the lag time to
either clock.
Zek on ICS
Eric S. Perlman
I wish this were possible! As I said I'm not a computer expert, but it
would be an excellent solution to this problem.
John R Coffey
>Zek on ICS
DITO. There is no way you can simulate real play without
the front end keeping track of your time. The front end
should tell the server how much time you have.
Why should I be penalized
for transmisssion time which is going to vary greatly every second.
David Stewart
>nefarious monster known as lag. Occasionally, it bites every user of
>ICS, causing his or her line to go dead for several minutes at a
>time. This usually -- 90% of the time -- happens without warning, and
>reasonably often affects only a few users at a time.
>1. It is the lagee's responsibility to (if possible) notify his/her
>opponent he/she has lag.
I wonder if this address's the fact that a person may have just thought a
wee bit too long in the position? There have been a few times in blitz
games where I have spent too little time on time management while playing
and ended up in time control. Under rule 1 I would just have to tell my
opponent that I had lag and I get a free game out of it... Is there
possibly some way to verify whether your opponent has had lag?
>2. If the lagee notifies the opponent that he/she is suffering
from >lag, the opponent has four options: the game may either be agreed
>drawn, adjourned, or aborted; or it may be continued.
I honestly believe that the game after verifying lag should be
courtesyaborted eh? No draws and no adjounments. Possibly another option
is warranted, like replacing the time lost during lag? If lag can be
verified by the system then a time_replacement feature may be implemented?
>5. If a person *KNOWS* he/she is currently suffering from lag, he/she
>should put such a notice in their stats and avoid blitz play.
If lag is so prevalent, and it is not predictable, that seems to be a
little extreme? I would not follow this rule eh?
>I would like to see this code, or one reasonably close to it, put into
>practice by the admins. In the case of a provable case of lagflagging,
>I suggest the following penalties be applied:
>1. Immediate reversal of the loss (i.e. the person who called the flag
>is awarded a loss; the lagee, a win), or complete excisement of the game
>from both records (the former should only be used for repeat offenders)
This could only happen if lag can be verified by the system or the admins
using some proven method.
>2. Placement of the lag-flagger on the abusers' list. This step should
>be mandatory.
I think this treads on dangerous grounds, but this is for the admins to
really decide on how it will be provable...
>Many people are aware that lately I've been agitating for such a policy
>through shouts. Given the response I think that at a minimum 80% of
>the ics public agree that lag-flagging is slimy, abusive behavior. A
>few players (notably Vision) believe it is perfectly defensible, indeed
>advisable behavior. These players, in my view, need to seriously
>reexamine their values (or get some -- for I believe they may have none).
I take it that you are extremely worried about your rating on the chess
server eh? Otherwise you would not really care about this, if you truly
had a won position then you know that and your opponent knows that. Do
not play him again eh? I honestly believe you are putting entirely too
much emphasis on this problem, the rating you receive on that system is
not official in any way other than on that system. There is no money
exchanged nor prizes won so nothing to be gained or lost but a few
electronic points... Am I correct in this assumption?
da...@hebron.connected.com
"The chess mind is a veritable plethora of clutter"
John R Coffey
"abuse" is excessive. I lose games because of lag too, but
that is how the system is set up. Sometimes I win and
sometimes I lose. Maybe I can blame the lag, or maybe I
am just slower on some days.
If you want to change this then you need to change the
way games are timed or change the time limit you choose,
and not expect people to voluntarily give up their claim
to a win.
I will courtesy abort sometimes if my opponent requests
it, but I have also seen people try to get out of bad
situations by blaming it on lag. Then they shout
nasty things at me when I flag them.
It is just game and it isn't always going to be just
or fair.
T. M. Cuffel
>>Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
>>
>>In general, yes.
>>
>>>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>>>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
>>
>>Right now, none. Although I think lag-flagging is somewhat unethical, I
>>can appreciate the other point of view. You accept that risk by playing
>>with short controls, and it is not your opponent's fault if you lag.
>
>don't know your opponent is lagging you may have some excuse. If you
>know your opponent is lagging I don't see how you have any excuse
>whatsoever.
A possible counter argument would go like this (note this is NOT my view):
Bottom line, we are here to play chess. Chess involves clocks, and
yours is out of time. How and why that happened is not my concern.
I might sound cold, but if it gets around that screaming lag with get
an abort from me, I never win again. You nap OTB, you'd be lucky if
your opponent wakes you up, much less gives you your time back. The
long and short of it your computer, your connection, your problem.
When we agreed to a match, it was for better or for worse. We knew the risks.
Your lag could just as easily wreck a game for me, so maybe I want a win
for my trouble.
[end lag-flagging mode]
I know this isn't the soundest argument ever constructed, but somewhere
in there might be a reason to lag-flag that doesn't make your opponent a
total ogre.
>>At this point all we have is a difference of opinion. The first step
>>is for the admins to adopt an official stance against it. If the problem
>>still persists, then other action may be necessary. Bear in mind also that
>>even if we do nothing, all that is lost is some unofficial rating points.
>
>Yes and no. What is also tarnished is the reputation of the ICS in
>general, as it will be seen as promoting an unethical practice.
Unethical is not a universal opinion. You said about 20% of everyone
thought it was ok. Besides, how can you follow a rule that doesn't
exist yet?
>>>3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
>>>of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
>>
>>I think the biggest problem is identifying lag flagging in the first place.
>>Even short bursts of lag could mean the difference in a typical blitz game.
>>If I am in time trouble too, I may not have the luxury of checking to
>>see if you have lagged.
>
>Certainly. In short blitz games, (particularly <7 0 or so) I think
>you'd better be darned sure you aren't having lag right then. And if
>your opponent didn't know you had lag, I would accept this as an honest
>mistake, and let bygones be bygones.
I can be in time trouble no matter what time control I have, especially with
small increments. Even if my opponent warned me about lag, I may not have
the time to try to figure out whether I should flag or not.
>>Let's say you warn me that you are lagging. I am a nice guy, and don't want
>>to take advantage, but what does this entail? Never flagging you? Giving
>>you a little extra leeway? Both of these put me at a disadvantage with
>>short time controls, and hurt the integrity of the clock, especially with
>>increments that allow your flag to "unfall".
>
>In a blitz game, I would seriously advise either a courtesyabort, an
>adjournment, or agreement to a draw (see my "code proposal").
>Otherwise, I would advise giving a reasonable leeway (with reasonable
>being dictated by how much lag the person has).
And how do I know this? Lag isn't exactly the most quantifiable thing
around. I am playing 10 10, a pawn up in the middlegame, and you say you're
lagging. What should I do later in the game, when your clock runs from
0:10 to 0:00? 0:30 to 0:00? 1:00 to 0:00? My clock only has 0:05 on it,
and the position is real complicated, so stopping to check on you could
lose the game for me.
>>Except in the most extreme cases, I do not think it is possible to verify
>>lag-flagging. We can set guidelines, and hope people will follow them, but
>>enforcing them is bound to be more of a headache than the problem itself.
>
>I don't know whether it is, and I am certainly no computer expert. But
>I think the need is urgent, and that several players gleefully and
>unfairly take advantage of the situation whenever possible to gain
>rating points. If it is possible, I feel a policy must be implemented.
I also question the urgency of the problem. So far I have lost one game
to lag, and while frustrating, it was not my opponent's fault. You mention
three games you have lost to lag-flaggers. Out of how many? And were
all those people ruthlessly taking advantage of you, or did they just happen
to flag you at the wrong time?
Eric S. Perlman
>In article <2qrkt7$m...@lace.colorado.edu>,
>Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>Everyone on ICS (both European and American) is familiar with the
>>nefarious monster known as lag. Occasionally, it bites every user of
>>ICS, causing his or her line to go dead for several minutes at a
>>time. This usually -- 90% of the time -- happens without warning, and
>>reasonably often affects only a few users at a time.
>
>>1. It is the lagee's responsibility to (if possible) notify his/her
>>opponent he/she has lag.
>
>I wonder if this address's the fact that a person may have just thought a
>wee bit too long in the position? There have been a few times in blitz
>games where I have spent too little time on time management while playing
>and ended up in time control. Under rule 1 I would just have to tell my
>opponent that I had lag and I get a free game out of it... Is there
>possibly some way to verify whether your opponent has had lag?
I don't know. This is part of the reason I wrote this article. I'm no
computer expert, but there are certainly readers of rgc who are.
Perhaps some of them can come up with a method to verify this.
My guess is that the number of such cases would be small. First of all,
lag often tends to come in large spurts rather than small ones (often
30-200 seconds). It is of ccourse possible that one could try to pass
off long thinks as lags, but I think more plible at the lower end of
this range.
>>2. If the lagee notifies the opponent that he/she is suffering
>from >lag, the opponent has four options: the game may either be agreed
>>drawn, adjourned, or aborted; or it may be continued.
>
>I honestly believe that the game after verifying lag should be
>courtesyaborted eh? No draws and no adjounments. Possibly another option
>is warranted, like replacing the time lost during lag? If lag can be
>verified by the system then a time_replacement feature may be implemented?
Courtesyabort is certainly the cleanest solution, and between the
options oof courtesyabort, draw and adjournment, it is the one I'd
prefer. Some may choose to play on though; if they do, they should
undetand that until the problem can be fixed they shouldn't feel free to
flag at will.
>>5. If a person *KNOWS* he/she is currently suffering from lag, he/she
>>should put such a notice in their stats and avoid blitz play.
>
>If lag is so prevalent, and it is not predictable, that seems to be a
>little extreme? I would not follow this rule eh?
Why is it extreme? It's only a practical suggestion. Numerous players I
can think of do it already. There *are* sites which regularly suffer
from large lags.
>>I would like to see this code, or one reasonably close to it, put into
>>practice by the admins. In the case of a provable case of lagflagging,
>>I suggest the following penalties be applied:
>
>>1. Immediate reversal of the loss (i.e. the person who called the flag
>>is awarded a loss; the lagee, a win), or complete excisement of the game
>>from both records (the former should only be used for repeat offenders)
>
>This could only happen if lag can be verified by the system or the admins
>using some proven method.
Agreed.
>>2. Placement of the lag-flagger on the abusers' list. This step should
>>be mandatory.
>
>I think this treads on dangerous grounds, but this is for the admins to
>really decide on how it will be provable...
Please tell me how it would be dangerous.
>>Many people are aware that lately I've been agitating for such a policy
>>through shouts. Given the response I think that at a minimum 80% of
>>the ics public agree that lag-flagging is slimy, abusive behavior. A
>>few players (notably Vision) believe it is perfectly defensible, indeed
>>advisable behavior. These players, in my view, need to seriously
>>reexamine their values (or get some -- for I believe they may have none).
>
>I take it that you are extremely worried about your rating on the chess
>server eh? Otherwise you would not really care about this, if you truly
>had a won position then you know that and your opponent knows that. Do
>not play him again eh? I honestly believe you are putting entirely too
>much emphasis on this problem, the rating you receive on that system is
>not official in any way other than on that system. There is no money
>exchanged nor prizes won so nothing to be gained or lost but a few
>electronic points... Am I correct in this assumption?
No, I am *NOT* extremely worried about my rating on the chess server.
In fact this has nothing to do with my motivation. Does it surprise
you, Dave, that some people attach high importance to the need for a
code of ethical behavior? I have run chess tournaments for 6 years,
including tourneys as large as 219 players. Such behavior would not be
allowed at most chess clubs, even in informal play. It should not be
allowed on ICS either.
Andy McFarland
: In article <2qs3dh$o...@ndlc.occ.uky.edu>,
: Andy McFarland <amc...@ndlc.occ.uky.edu> wrote:
: I know a little about networks, and I don't think it is feasible to detect
: and measure everybody's lag.
There could be a new ICS style that includes a timestamp for each move.
This would be generated by an interface program such as GIICS. ICS could
issue a 'ping' to verify a timestamp.
: ... Lag prevents you from
: moving. It does not prevent you from thinking. If lag were deducted
: from your clock, you have more time think. Having lots of lag gives
: you an advantage over your opponent.
Both players get to think on the lag time.
Zek on ICS
Michael Hentges
>In article <2qroj6$n...@lace.Colorado.EDU> cuf...@cs.colorado.edu (T. M. Cuffel) writes:
>>In article <2qrkt7$m...@lace.colorado.edu>,
>>Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
>>
>>In general, yes.
Hold on a minute here folks, are ratings really that important? And
besides, even if you do get "illegally" flagged, you will make up the
lost rating points over the next X number of games by getting a couple
of extra points for your wins or losing a couple fewer points for your
losses - your rating is only as accurate as your last 20 games or
so...
I like aries's policy on "falging" (false flagging), only call an
opponent's flag on their *second* time going below the time limit.
Then if you suffer from lag you get a chance to let your opponent
know, and the game can be aborted. Of course this only works with
"increment" time controls - but if you are playing without any
increment all's fair in my opinion...
Michael Hentges (Tarjan)
mhen...@mermaid.micro.umn.edu
76636...@compuserve.com
Paul A. Lane
>I would like to see this code, or one reasonably close to it, put into
>practice by the admins. In the case of a provable case of lagflagging,
>I suggest the following penalties be applied:
>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
It's what I would call "not nice" behavior.
>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
Nope.
>3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
>of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
Sorry. I have in the past also played Netrek, a real-time multi-player
game for X-Windows (see rec.games.netrek). If you think a lag problem
is bad when you've got 15 sec. per move, try it when you're in combat!
And, trust me, Netrekker take their DI as seriously as we do our rating
points.
In any event, while it's an annoyance, I don't think it should be a
matter for formal enforcement. I do recall one game set at 15/15 where
I patiently waited for my opponent to move, disconnect, do anything.
After ten minutes, I flagged because I had to get my computer back.
I left a message apologizing and explaining and he was quite courteous
about the matter.
Also, no blitz game should ever be subject to those kinds of restrictions.
If you play blitz, lag is a real part of the game.
Paul
--
Mike Thomas
Just couldn't resist responding to a couple of the 'lag' articles:
---Much deleted from an earlier posting---
-I also question the urgency of the problem. So far I have lost one game
-to lag, and while frustrating, it was not my opponent's fault. You mention
-three games you have lost to lag-flaggers. Out of how many? And were
-all those people ruthlessly taking advantage of you, or did they just happen
-to flag you at the wrong time?
You are very fortunate indeed, to have such good network access. I lose games
*every* time I log on to the server due to lag, if I log on during the normal
working day. The only solution was to either be satisfied with losing 70% of
the games to lag or simply quit playing during the day--I quit. Many, many
people on the server have complained about severe lag problems. You are fortunate
to have such good network access, wish I were so lucky.
---Merged another lag article here---
-: ... Lag prevents you from
-: moving. It does not prevent you from thinking. If lag were deducted
-: from your clock, you have more time think. Having lots of lag gives
-: you an advantage over your opponent.
-Both players get to think on the lag time.
-Zek on ICS
Jeez Zek, do you ever get any lag either? I have to doubt that you've really
experienced much lag, considering your previous statement. The lag also affects
moves transmitted to you, i.e. you're still waiting for your opponent to move in
a time critical situation, but in reality you're lagging so bad that you haven't
received the move and he's already flagged you. This has happened to me many,
many times.
"Both players get to think on the lag time." That's hilarious! I fell out of
my chair when I read that! You and I must have rather different personalities
Zek, I definitely know that the lag doesn't aid my thought processes, let alone
allow for calm analysis of the board. Since lag is so prevalent, from
my perspective, I'm constantly being distracted by checking for it. Anytime
there is a pause from my opponent, I've learned that it's time to start tap
dancing on the keyboard. I just can't think about the game when I can watch
the last 20 seconds ticking down and I'm about to be lag-flagged by my opponent.
The other aspect of lagging is that it means you will be in time-trouble throughout
the game. If you're lagging a lot you will find that it is imperative that you
move almost instantly to avoid an outright loss on time. This is also not
particularly conducive to calm analysis of the position.
Those with particularly good network connections to the current server simply
do not understand what everyone else is carrying on about, either that or they
never play blitz.
--
--Mike Thomas tho...@agcs.com
T. M. Cuffel
I know a little about networks, and I don't think it is feasible to detect
and measure everybody's lag.
But even if it were, not charging for lag would not be a solution. Lag is
the time it takes for a computer signal to get from you to ICS. These
signals are not instantaneous, so there is always going to be some lag
detected. This lag would not be accounted for on the clock, so the
clocks will always run slow. Not too much of a problem except that
everyone's clock will be slow by an unpredictably different amout. If you
don't think that is a problem, consider this. Lag prevents you from
moving. It does not prevent you from thinking. If lag were deducted
from your clock, you have more time think. Having lots of lag gives
you an advantage over your opponent. All I have to do is exchange
passwords with a friend in New Zealand, hop back and forth between our
accounts a couple hundred times before I login to ICS, and I now gain
1000 points on my blitz rating.
Andy McFarland
: -: ... Lag prevents you from
: -: moving. It does not prevent you from thinking. If lag were deducted
: -: from your clock, you have more time think. Having lots of lag gives
: -: you an advantage over your opponent.
: -Both players get to think on the lag time.
: Jeez Zek, do you ever get any lag either? I have to doubt that you've
: really experienced much lag, considering your previous statement. The lag
: also affects moves transmitted to you, i.e. you're still waiting for your
: opponent to move in a time critical situation, but in reality you're
: lagging so bad that you haven't received the move and he's already
: flagged you. This has happened to me many, many times.
:"Both players get to think on the lag time." That's hilarious! I fell out
: of my chair when I read that! You and I must have rather different
: personalities Zek, I definitely know that the lag doesn't aid my thought
: processes, let alone allow for calm analysis of the board. Since lag is
: so prevalent, from my perspective, I'm constantly being distracted by
: checking for it. Anytime there is a pause from my opponent, I've learned
: that it's time to start tap dancing on the keyboard. I just can't think
: about the game when I can watch the last 20 seconds ticking down and I'm
: about to be lag-flagged by my opponent.
The first quote was in response to my proposal to have the ICS server
track lag and not charge it to either player. If this were done lag
would affect both players equally. I have had lag and have lost some
games because of it.
Zek on ICS
Ron_Ko...@transarc.com
ensure that the client software doesn't lie about its time usage.
How about this idea:
Let's be happy with what we've got.
Kevin O'Connor
>>Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>>Everyone on ICS (both European and American) is familiar with the
>>>nefarious monster known as lag. Occasionally, it bites every user of
>>>ICS, causing his or her line to go dead for several minutes at a
>>>time. This usually -- 90% of the time -- happens without warning, and
>>>reasonably often affects only a few users at a time.
>>>2. Placement of the lag-flagger on the abusers' list. This step should
>>>be mandatory.
This accomplishes nothing. A player on the abusers list loses a game
if his connection to ICS is terminated. Adding "lag-flaggers" to this
list wont stop them from flagging. Also, making a "lag-flagger" lose
games due to connection loss, or expanding the abusers list to prevent
flagging is inappropriate.
>>
>>I think this treads on dangerous grounds, but this is for the admins to
>>really decide on how it will be provable...
>
>Please tell me how it would be dangerous.
>
>>>Many people are aware that lately I've been agitating for such a policy
>>>through shouts. Given the response I think that at a minimum 80% of
>>>the ics public agree that lag-flagging is slimy, abusive behavior. A
>>>few players (notably Vision) believe it is perfectly defensible, indeed
>>>advisable behavior. These players, in my view, need to seriously
>>>reexamine their values (or get some -- for I believe they may have none).
I think there is a simple solution that you are overlooking. If you
inform your opponent of lag, you have a clearly winning or drawing position,
and he still calls your flag then you should place him on your censor list
and never play him again.
I have never had a problem when I asked to not be flagged, nor have I ever
given anyone else problems. If there truly are "evil-abusive-unsympathetic-
lag-flaggers" on ICS then I have no doubt that they will either learn,
or run out of players.
>>much emphasis on this problem, the rating you receive on that system is
>>not official in any way other than on that system. There is no money
>>exchanged nor prizes won so nothing to be gained or lost but a few
>>electronic points... Am I correct in this assumption?
>
>No, I am *NOT* extremely worried about my rating on the chess server.
>In fact this has nothing to do with my motivation. Does it surprise
>you, Dave, that some people attach high importance to the need for a
>code of ethical behavior? I have run chess tournaments for 6 years,
>including tourneys as large as 219 players. Such behavior would not be
>allowed at most chess clubs, even in informal play. It should not be
>allowed on ICS either.
Such behavior is not possible at most chess clubs! I view, and suspect
many others view, that ICS is merely a place to go to get a few games
of chess with strong players. By creatine rules, abuser lists, censor
lists, etc. we endanger the main purpose of ICS.
Philipp Schmid
|> Actually, now that I think about it ... it would be pretty tough to
|> ensure that the client software doesn't lie about its time usage.
|>
Don't forget the ASCII users that connect using telnet!
|> How about this idea:
|>
|> Let's be happy with what we've got.
|>
People tend to get too focused on the ratings. As several people have
pointed out in the past, ICS is (also) a place to learn and to experiment.
- Philipp
Eric S. Perlman
>In <2qrkt7$m...@lace.Colorado.EDU> per...@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>
>>I would like to see this code, or one reasonably close to it, put into
>>practice by the admins. In the case of a provable case of lagflagging,
>>I suggest the following penalties be applied:
>
>>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
>
>It's what I would call "not nice" behavior.
What separates "not-nice" from unethical, in your book, Paul?
>>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
>
>Nope.
>
>>3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
>>of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
>
>
>
>Sorry. I have in the past also played Netrek, a real-time multi-player
>game for X-Windows (see rec.games.netrek). If you think a lag problem
>is bad when you've got 15 sec. per move, try it when you're in combat!
>And, trust me, Netrekker take their DI as seriously as we do our rating
>points.
I've never played Netrek, so I can't comment on that. But in any case,
it's not an issue pertaining to rating points in the slightest, at least
for me. The only thing at issue for me is the ethical side of it.
>In any event, while it's an annoyance, I don't think it should be a
>matter for formal enforcement. I do recall one game set at 15/15 where
>I patiently waited for my opponent to move, disconnect, do anything.
>After ten minutes, I flagged because I had to get my computer back.
>I left a message apologizing and explaining and he was quite courteous
>about the matter.
>
>Also, no blitz game should ever be subject to those kinds of restrictions.
>If you play blitz, lag is a real part of the game.
>
>Paul
It shouldn't be. It isn't in club chess, and it shouldn't be on ICS.
Eric S. Perlman
>I think I missed the original post, but I think the term
>"abuse" is excessive. I lose games because of lag too, but
>that is how the system is set up. Sometimes I win and
>sometimes I lose. Maybe I can blame the lag, or maybe I
>am just slower on some days.
is legal under the rules as they are now set up?
>If you want to change this then you need to change the
>way games are timed or change the time limit you choose,
>and not expect people to voluntarily give up their claim
>to a win.
I've already said this would be an excellent solution. See my response
to Zek yesterday evening.
>I will courtesy abort sometimes if my opponent requests
>it, but I have also seen people try to get out of bad
>situations by blaming it on lag. Then they shout
>nasty things at me when I flag them.
>
>It is just game and it isn't always going to be just
>or fair.
Yes it is just a game. But people have a *right* to expect that it will
be as fair as possible. The situation right now is manifestly unfair.
Eric S. Perlman
>In <2qrkt7$m...@lace.Colorado.EDU> per...@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>
>
>consider it unethical -- you agree when you start the game to play
>with a particular time control and with a particular clock arbitrating
>that time control. I tend not to flag opponents who lag -- I'm not as
>concerned about winning or losing (that is, I try to win, but it's not
>such a tragedy if I lose) -- but if other people flag me the moment my
>time control lapses, I can't see how to blame them.
I cannot agree. Yes, when you agree when you start the game to play
with a particular time control and clock arbitrating the game. BUT lag
usually affects one side more than another during a game if it affects
either side. This, in my view, is NOT something you agree to. Lag-
flagging is taking unfair advantage of this situation. That's why I've
made it a policy never to do it (and I never have, to date). And that's
why, in my notes, I have a public list of people who have done it to me.
>>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
>
>Maybe my answer in #1 invalidates this answer, but I do have solutions
>to the problem.
>a) play only unrated games. Then you won't feel the same sense of loss
>when lag strikes.
>b) offer an unlimited time control -- has this been implemented?
>I guess something like 1440 0 would approximate it. Or 1440 86400.
This is not a solution. ESPECIALLY since 90%+ of the time lag is
completely unpredictable.
>c) if you suffer lag, immediately resign. That way, you won't feel
>angry at your opponent should he or she flag you -- and it is no more
>artificial than a draw or a courtesy-abort. Don't you think aborting a
>game in an unbalanced position is just as much a tragedy as a loss on
>time in that situation? All that work and anticipation, then ...
><null>.
Why? It gives your opponent the feeling of glee, that s/he "won the
game", which is completely unethical. A courtesyabort destroys what may
be a very very interesting game, but it's fair to both sides, since the
game isn't won till the fat lady sings...
> That's what's unfortunate about lag, not how the game is
>recorded. If you resign when you suffer lag, then you can direct your
>frustration in the appropriate direction -- a less-than-perfect
>(though still quite wonderful) system for playing chess over the net.
I disagree. If you resign when suffering lag, then in lots of cases,
your rating will be largely a function of your connection's quality,
which most of us here have absolutely zero control of. In other words,
chess will have ceased to become what most of us love most about it -- a
pure contest between the will, calculating ability, and intuition of the
two players.
Rest deleted.
C. Frohman
chess. To show respect for your opponent you should try to win as hard as
you can. Letting someone have a draw when they are lost, either on the
board
or in time is an insult. If someone complains of lag I will abort, if not
and
their time expires I flag. I have had several enjoyable games with perlman
I
usually lose, but have a good time. I don't think we have ever had an
altercation about lag. I had a really nasty experience with jalbert. I was
the exchange down in an open middle game. He had spent a good deal more
time
making his moves than I had. No mention of lag. His time ran out, I flagged
him. This jerk sent me three messages of insults. His big theme was that I
must care too much about my rating to play good chess. You will see this
theme in his posts to rgc. This guy is an A player wanna be an expert. I am
a B player, wanna have a good time. My solution is to never play this guy
again.
This whole problem comes down to your view of competition. Manners have to
do with ego, giving strokes feeling good. I personally don't think that
this
is what chess is about. I think of ICS as a cheap Robert Blye seminar, with
chess replacing wrestling . If I play you, I will try to win. If the fight
is good I have a good time. I have a better time if I also win. As for
manners,
I use them when the situation calls for them.
C. Frohman "moss"
.
Ed Hanway
: Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
: >3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
: >of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
: I think the biggest problem is identifying lag flagging in the first place.
How about when you're flagged on move 8? Happened to me twice yesterday,
by two different people. My "solution" is to keep my own list of people that
do this and not play them any more. There are enough players on ICS that
I haven't had much of a problem finding opponents.
--
Ed Hanway --- j...@raster.kodak.com
EKC, KIG, ESPC, DSC, DPSC, ISG, M.O.U.S.E.
Any opinions are mine, not Kodak's.
Steve Mayer
these points have been raised, others haven't.
1) A "no-lag-flag" rule effectively destroys the integrity of clocks and
the purposes of having clocks. It means that once an oppo has been lagged
out of time, I can no longer flag him, even if he later would have
_legitimately_ run out of time. In other words, a "no-lag-flag" rule
turns a clock game into a non-clock game.
2) Once I (sportingly) decide not to flag my oppo, I run the risk of him
flagging with both flags down, i.e, drawing the game.
3) I always hear this bit about "Inform your opponent if you are
lagging." How do you do this? "Your" monitor freezes up and nothing you
send to ICS (or "shout", etc) appears for an indeterminate period of
time. So how do you tell anyone that you're being lagged out of time?
4) Finally, I think everyone over time is lagged equally. Therefore, the
solution is to always "lag-flag" and things will even out in the end.
Sure, there are folks with substandard connections who _always_ get
lagged. Well, my advice to them is to improve your connection or don't
play rated blitz. But don't expect everyone else to play effectively non-clock
games just because of _your_ lag.
Comments, questions, etc, appreciated.
-Steve
Ron_Ko...@transarc.com
even worse problems. Their main deficiency is that they rely on
SUBJECTIVE claims of lag. I want a solution that is OBJECTIVE.
Many people complain about lag after they lose on time -- But if you
look at the move patterns during the game, you can see that they took
the extra time on the tough positions. In actuality, they probably
experience some small (normal) lag during time trouble, then
extrapolate it to be the rationale for losing the game. If they could
call off the game during time trouble due to a perception of "lag",
that would be grossly unfair to the person that paced himself and
acheived a time advantage. Under these suggestions, there are certain
people who would never lose another ICS game. The same people who
complain, "oh, I had you all the way .. then ..."
> Many users take advantage of situations where their opponents suddenly
> get lag and lose time to call their flag. It is my belief, as an
> experienced tournament director, who was also one of ICS's first users
> (I began playing on the ICS within two weeks after its creation), that
> this practice is cheating. It is every bit as much abuse as the
> practice of quitting (e.g. logging off) the ICS when you have a lost
> position (which practice is now recognized as abuse, and punished as
> such by the admins).
As an experienced tournament player who has been playing on ICS since
the very first few days ... I disagree completely. You come up with
an OBJECTIVE solution, and we'll go for it. If the client software
could be upgraded to record and send the time actually spent (in some
encryped format), then we could have an OBJECTIVE measurement of time.
And losses due to serious lag could be prevented. But no way do I
want to give up a win due to some random's SUBJECTIVE lag complaint.
Ted Alper
>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
No, not really. It's CERTAINLY not cheating, and I can't really
consider it unethical -- you agree when you start the game to play
with a particular time control and with a particular clock arbitrating
that time control. I tend not to flag opponents who lag -- I'm not as
concerned about winning or losing (that is, I try to win, but it's not
such a tragedy if I lose) -- but if other people flag me the moment my
time control lapses, I can't see how to blame them.
>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
Maybe my answer in #1 invalidates this answer, but I do have solutions
to the problem.
a) play only unrated games. Then you won't feel the same sense of loss
when lag strikes.
b) offer an unlimited time control -- has this been implemented?
I guess something like 1440 0 would approximate it. Or 1440 86400.
c) if you suffer lag, immediately resign. That way, you won't feel
angry at your opponent should he or she flag you -- and it is no more
artificial than a draw or a courtesy-abort. Don't you think aborting a
game in an unbalanced position is just as much a tragedy as a loss on
time in that situation? All that work and anticipation, then ...
<null>. That's what's unfortunate about lag, not how the game is
recorded. If you resign when you suffer lag, then you can direct your
frustration in the appropriate direction -- a less-than-perfect
(though still quite wonderful) system for playing chess over the net.
d) My personal solution is to play on, inform my opponent, and then
not worry about the outcome.
>3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
>of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
Well, we've already parted company.
Ted Alper (momo on ICS)
T. M. Cuffel
True, but the player who is lagging still has the advantage of more time for
think about the immediate move. Thinking on your opponent's time is always
less productive. That's how time odds work.
If you don't think this is the case, I will be happy to demonstrate next
time I see you on ICS. My half hour to your minute should be sufficient...
T. M. Cuffel
>In fact this has nothing to do with my motivation. Does it surprise
>you, Dave, that some people attach high importance to the need for a
>code of ethical behavior? I have run chess tournaments for 6 years,
>including tourneys as large as 219 players. Such behavior would not be
>allowed at most chess clubs, even in informal play. It should not be
>allowed on ICS either.
Is this true? What would you do with someone who "lagged" over the board
(nacrolepsy, petite mal siezures, attention disorders)? Could you give
them special treatment? What about dishonest people claiming to
suffer from these problems? What about dishonest people who actually
suffer from these problems and using it to their advantage?
Eric S. Perlman
>I agree that the lag is a problem, but these solutions would lead to
>even worse problems. Their main deficiency is that they rely on
>SUBJECTIVE claims of lag. I want a solution that is OBJECTIVE.
Ron, I completely agree. That's what I am trying to achieve. However,
not being a computer expert, I need people's help on what (if any)
objective and fair solutions are out there.
>Many people complain about lag after they lose on time -- But if you
>look at the move patterns during the game, you can see that they took
>the extra time on the tough positions. In actuality, they probably
>experience some small (normal) lag during time trouble, then
>extrapolate it to be the rationale for losing the game. If they could
>call off the game during time trouble due to a perception of "lag",
>that would be grossly unfair to the person that paced himself and
>acheived a time advantage. Under these suggestions, there are certain
>people who would never lose another ICS game. The same people who
>complain, "oh, I had you all the way .. then ..."
I completely agree, and I think you've brought up an excellent point.
If an arbitrated solution is to be agreed upon, I think such things
would be reasonably easy to spot. Similarly for Zek's solution of
timestamping the moves and subtracting the lag from time used. But how
to technically achieve the last solution? I don't know.
>> Many users take advantage of situations where their opponents suddenly
>> get lag and lose time to call their flag. It is my belief, as an
>> experienced tournament director, who was also one of ICS's first users
>> (I began playing on the ICS within two weeks after its creation), that
>> this practice is cheating. It is every bit as much abuse as the
>> practice of quitting (e.g. logging off) the ICS when you have a lost
>> position (which practice is now recognized as abuse, and punished as
>> such by the admins).
>
>As an experienced tournament player who has been playing on ICS since
>the very first few days ... I disagree completely. You come up with
>an OBJECTIVE solution, and we'll go for it. If the client software
>could be upgraded to record and send the time actually spent (in some
>encryped format), then we could have an OBJECTIVE measurement of time.
>And losses due to serious lag could be prevented. But no way do I
>want to give up a win due to some random's SUBJECTIVE lag complaint.
Absolutely no problem here. Let me assure everyone that objectivity is
a MUST if we are to come up with a solution to lag-flagging. Otherwise,
we're opening ourselves up to a worse ethical dilemma than we now have!
John R Coffey
>How about this idea:
Yes, but I assume most people will be honest. What happens if
someone cheats? Their rating goes up! And the lower rated
players will no longer play them. They have tougher competition
to deal with.
To me it would be more realistic if the software could keep track
of my time. I am not going to try to inflate my ego by having the
software cheat for me.
Eric S. Perlman
> I'd like to jump in on this topic of ICS and lag-flagging. Some of
>these points have been raised, others haven't.
>
>1) A "no-lag-flag" rule effectively destroys the integrity of clocks and
>the purposes of having clocks. It means that once an oppo has been lagged
>out of time, I can no longer flag him, even if he later would have
>_legitimately_ run out of time. In other words, a "no-lag-flag" rule
>turns a clock game into a non-clock game.
>2) Once I (sportingly) decide not to flag my oppo, I run the risk of him
>flagging with both flags down, i.e, drawing the game.
I think there would have to be an agreement not to do this.
>3) I always hear this bit about "Inform your opponent if you are
>lagging." How do you do this? "Your" monitor freezes up and nothing you
>send to ICS (or "shout", etc) appears for an indeterminate period of
>time. So how do you tell anyone that you're being lagged out of time?
If possible you tell your opponent. It may not be possible during short
games. However, if the opponent has time s/he should check by asking
when s/he suspects you have lag.
>4) Finally, I think everyone over time is lagged equally. Therefore, the
>solution is to always "lag-flag" and things will even out in the end.
>Sure, there are folks with substandard connections who _always_ get
>lagged. Well, my advice to them is to improve your connection or don't
>play rated blitz. But don't expect everyone else to play effectively non-clock
>games just because of _your_ lag.
This isn't true. See some of Mike Thomas's comments in particular.
And lots of people aren't in control of their connection. So, you've
basically proposed a no-win solution, IMHO.
Eric S. Perlman
KTim, how often does this actually happen at a tournament (e.g. lying
about such a physical or psychological disability)? I mean,
really? I've never, *ever* seen or heard of such a thing in all my 6
years of TDing and 15 years as a tournament player.
About the closest thing I've eer had happen (and believe me, I do *NOT*
consider it in anyway analogous to lagging) to lagging in a USCF rated
tournament was at the Benjamin Gerash memorial tournament four years ago
in Denver. My opponent's car was broken into *during* our game. His
window was shattered and his new CD player ripped right out of the
dashboard. Our game was at a tense, critical juncture; I had a
significant edge. No doubt if I had wished I could have taken advantage
of his state of mind and won easily. Three moves later I chose to offer
him a draw, which he accepted. Why? I would consider it unethical to
take advantage of a player in such unfair circumstances. Indeed, if a
player's car was robbed during a tournament game and s/he requested the
game be adjourned immediately, I would grant it for this exact reason.
Hdicapped players *DO* play in tournaments. It is within the rules for
handicapped players to have assistants whose purpose is to either move
pieces or be responsible for their health while at tournaments. Note
that their opponents get offered the same assistance if this is to be
the case. See, for reference, pages 145-149 of the new USCF rule book
(and in particular rules 35B and various parts of 35F).
The bottom line is, it *is* perfectly within the rules to make
allowances for handicapped players. For fairness, when a handicapped
player is offered such allowances or assistance, the saoffer is made to
the non-handicapped player.
Let me turn the question around, Tim. Let's say you're playing an
opponent who has an epileptic-like seizure during time pressure of a
tournament game. While the seizure is going on, his flag falls. Are
you going to call his flag? I wouldn't, and I would seriously question
the ethics of anyone who would.
The pro-lag-flagging side is asking that we call the flag in such
situations. Now do you see why it makes me, and the vast majority of
other players on ICS, so angry, when we are lag-flagged?
T. M. Cuffel
>about such a physical or psychological disability)?
Probably never. I thought maybe we could shed a little light on the
situation with this analogy.
>I mean,
>really? I've never, *ever* seen or heard of such a thing in all my 6
>years of TDing and 15 years as a tournament player.
>
>About the closest thing I've eer had happen (and believe me, I do *NOT*
>consider it in anyway analogous to lagging) to lagging in a USCF rated
>tournament was at the Benjamin Gerash memorial tournament four years ago
>in Denver. My opponent's car was broken into *during* our game. His
>window was shattered and his new CD player ripped right out of the
>dashboard. Our game was at a tense, critical juncture; I had a
>significant edge. No doubt if I had wished I could have taken advantage
>of his state of mind and won easily. Three moves later I chose to offer
>him a draw, which he accepted. Why? I would consider it unethical to
>take advantage of a player in such unfair circumstances. Indeed, if a
>player's car was robbed during a tournament game and s/he requested the
>game be adjourned immediately, I would grant it for this exact reason.
Sounds good to me.
>
>Hdicapped players *DO* play in tournaments. It is within the rules for
>handicapped players to have assistants whose purpose is to either move
>pieces or be responsible for their health while at tournaments. Note
>that their opponents get offered the same assistance if this is to be
>the case. See, for reference, pages 145-149 of the new USCF rule book
>(and in particular rules 35B and various parts of 35F).
Iactually did a little research into this a while back.
>
>The bottom line is, it *is* perfectly within the rules to make
>allowances for handicapped players. For fairness, when a handicapped
>player is offered such allowances or assistance, the saoffer is made to
>the non-handicapped player.
>
>Let me turn the question around, Tim. Let's say you're playing an
>opponent who has an epileptic-like seizure during time pressure of a
>tournament game. While the seizure is going on, his flag falls. Are
>you going to call his flag? I wouldn't, and I would seriously question
>the ethics of anyone who would.
Of course I wouldn't. But that was not what I was asking. A petite mal
siezure causes one to stare into space for a short period of time.
I would not flag a person whom I knew was in such a state. But what
if it happened earlier? Should I put time back on their clock?
Should offer a draw to offset the disadvantage? What should the TD
do?
I think they would be no way to compesate for this handicap, and I don't
think lag can be compensated for either. At least not fairly.
John R Coffey
>>It is just game and it isn't always going to be just
>>or fair.
>Yes it is just a game. But people have a *right* to expect that it will
>be as fair as possible. The situation right now is manifestly unfair.
I like the idea of the front end keeping track - or having the option
to keep track of time.
Other than that, I am pretty happy with the system.
John
Eric S. Perlman
>In article <2qrqku$o...@lace.colorado.edu>,>>In article <2qroj6$n...@lace.Colorado.EDU> cuf...@cs.colorado.edu (T. M. Cuffel) writes:
>>>In article <2qrkt7$m...@lace.colorado.edu>,
>>>
>>>>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>>>>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
>>>
>>>can appreciate the other point of view. You accept that risk by playing
>>>with short controls, and it is not your opponent's fault if you lag.
>>
>>How does this help me to appreciate the other point of view? If you
>>don't know your opponent is lagging you may have some excuse. If you
>>know your opponent is lagging I don't see how you have any excuse
>>whatsoever.
>
>A possible counter argument would go like this (note this is NOT my view):
>
>Bottom line, we are here to play chess. Chess involves clocks, and
>yours is out of time. How and why that happened is not my concern.
>I might sound cold, but if it gets around that screaming lag with get
>an abort from me, I never win again. You nap OTB, you'd be lucky if
>your opponent wakes you up, much less gives you your time back. The
>long and short of it your computer, your connection, your problem.
>When we agreed to a match, it was for better or for worse. We knew the risks.
>Your lag could just as easily wreck a game for me, so maybe I want a win
>for my trouble.
In a word, BULL DUST. If you fall asleep in an OTB game, it's your
fault. Completely. Lag is not your fault. And in the case of 90%+ of
the people who play on ICS, they have no control over their lag.
There is utterly no logic behind this point of view, Tim, and you know it.
>[end lag-flagging mode]
>
>I know this isn't the soundest argument ever constructed, but somewhere
>in there might be a reason to lag-flag that doesn't make your opponent a
>total ogre.
I haven't seen one yet.
>>>At this point all we have is a difference of opinion. The first step
>>>is for the admins to adopt an official stance against it. If the problem
>>>still persists, then other action may be necessary. Bear in mind also that
>>>even if we do nothing, all that is lost is some unofficial rating points.
>>
>>Yes and no. What is also tarnished is the reputation of the ICS in
>>general, as it will be seen as promoting an unethical practice.
>
>Unethical is not a universal opinion. You said about 20% of everyone
>thought it was ok. Besides, how can you follow a rule that doesn't
>exist yet?
No, I said that at least 80% *OF THOSE WHO HAD RESPONDED* to my shouts
agreed that lag-flagging is cheating. That doesn't mean the remainder
think it's ok. And as regards your second question, I am posing an
either-or proposition I have yet to see refuted.
>>>>3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
>>>>of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
>>>
>>>I think the biggest problem is identifying lag flagging in the first place.
>>>Even short bursts of lag could mean the difference in a typical blitz game.
>>>If I am in time trouble too, I may not have the luxury of checking to
>>>see if you have lagged.
>>
>>Certainly. In short blitz games, (particularly <7 0 or so) I think
>>you'd better be darned sure you aren't having lag right then. And if
>>your opponent didn't know you had lag, I would accept this as an honest
>>mistake, and let bygones be bygones.
>
>I can be in time trouble no matter what time control I have, especially with
>small increments. Even if my opponent warned me about lag, I may not have
>the time to try to figure out whether I should flag or not.
If your opponent warns you about lag, you should have no option, except
to in some way address the situation. This means courtesyabort,
adjournment, or some such. Once you are warned about lag, flagging
should be illegal (particularly if the opponent would not have been in
time trouble without it, as is usually the case).
>>>Let's say you warn me that you are lagging. I am a nice guy, and don't want
>>>to take advantage, but what does this entail? Never flagging you? Giving
>>>you a little extra leeway? Both of these put me at a disadvantage with
>>>short time controls, and hurt the integrity of the clock, especially with
>>>increments that allow your flag to "unfall".
>>
>>In a blitz game, I would seriously advise either a courtesyabort, an
>>adjournment, or agreement to a draw (see my "code proposal").
>>Otherwise, I would advise giving a reasonable leeway (with reasonable
>>being dictated by how much lag the person has).
>
>And how do I know this? Lag isn't exactly the most quantifiable thing
>around. I am playing 10 10, a pawn up in the middlegame, and you say you're
>lagging. What should I do later in the game, when your clock runs from
>0:10 to 0:00? 0:30 to 0:00? 1:00 to 0:00? My clock only has 0:05 on it,
>and the position is real complicated, so stopping to check on you could
>lose the game for me.
If the opponents choose to continue the game, the best solution is that
it immediately becomes a "non-clock" type of game. In other words,
*Neither* player should call the other's flag. Note that an alternate
proposal has been made on this point (which I posted, after receiving it
in email) which is allso IMHO ethically sound.
>>>Except in the most extreme cases, I do not think it is possible to verify
>>>lag-flagging. We can set guidelines, and hope people will follow them, but
>>>enforcing them is bound to be more of a headache than the problem itself.
>>
>>I don't know whether it is, and I am certainly no computer expert. But
>>I think the need is urgent, and that several players gleefully and
>>unfairly take advantage of the situation whenever possible to gain
>>rating points. If it is possible, I feel a policy must be implemented.
>
>I also question the urgency of the problem. So far I have lost one game
>to lag, and while frustrating, it was not my opponent's fault. You mention
>three games you have lost to lag-flaggers. Out of how many? And were
>all those people ruthlessly taking advantage of you, or did they just happen
>to flag you at the wrong time?
I have lost three games in the last month (roughly) to lag-flagging.
Given my normal number of games per day, this would be about 3 out of
80-100 games, or something like 3% of my games. Before the last month,
it hadn't been a major problem. However, people have been complaining
a *LOT* about lag the last month (from sites all over the world) and it
is steadily getting worse. And as it gets worse, more people will take
advantage of it.
In my view, however, this obfuscates the issue, rather than elucidates
it further.
The second series of questions you ask are pertinent. In each case, the
only reason I lost those games was because of lag. In the last case,
against Finnegan, I had over 1:45 left on my clock, and the time control
was 2 12. I was also just about to win his rook (for no compensation).
I got a 1:30 long lag, and when he asked "you there?" I answered "Bad
lag here." This, by the way, after making my move. FFinnegan neitheer
acknowledged it nor offered a solution. Four moves later, after I had
gone a rook up, he called my flag (on the *FIRST* time it went over the
time limit). I tried to guard against this happening since I knew it
was possible by repeating moves so I wouldn't have to deal with it.
The other two situations were at least as bad. In both cases my
opponents knew I was lagging when they called my flag. In one case, (vs
Cheetah) it was called *while* the lag was going on for the second time
during the game.
I call that ruthlessly taking advantage of a situation you know your
opponent can do very little about.
Andy McFarland
(Eric S. Perlman)
What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases of
lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
(Andy McFarland)
The ICS software should be aware of lag and not charge the lag time to
either clock.
(DAV)
Sorry it isn't - I've asked about that a few months back. There would be
too many problems (especially the possibility of cheating).
(Andy McFarland)
I propose ICS allow a new style that requires moves to be sent with a
time stamp. ICS could use something like 'ping' to make spot
verifications. I am in the process of translating GIICS to Borland Pascal
and would be willing to add support for such a time stamp. Given general
access to such an interface, a player would have the option to decline
all non time stamped games.
Zek on ICS
DAV
|> In article <2qs3dh$o...@ndlc.occ.uky.edu> amc...@ndlc.occ.uky.edu (Andy McFarland) writes:
|> >Eric S. Perlman (per...@qso.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
|> >: of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
|> >
|> >
|> >either clock.
|> >
|> >
|>
|> I wish this were possible! As I said I'm not a computer expert, but it
|> would be an excellent solution to this problem.
|>
|> --
|> "How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
|> A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
|> Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.colorado.edu>
|> Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Sorry it isn't - I've asked about that a few months back.
There would be too many problems (especially the possibility of cheating).
DAV
T. M. Cuffel
Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>A possible counter argument would go like this (note this is NOT my view):
>>
>>Bottom line, we are here to play chess. Chess involves clocks, and
>>yours is out of time. How and why that happened is not my concern.
>>I might sound cold, but if it gets around that screaming lag with get
>>an abort from me, I never win again. You nap OTB, you'd be lucky if
>>your opponent wakes you up, much less gives you your time back. The
>>long and short of it your computer, your connection, your problem.
>>When we agreed to a match, it was for better or for worse. We knew the risks.
>>Your lag could just as easily wreck a game for me, so maybe I want a win
>>for my trouble.
>
>In a word, BULL DUST. If you fall asleep in an OTB game, it's your
>fault. Completely. Lag is not your fault. And in the case of 90%+ of
>the people who play on ICS, they have no control over their lag.
>
>There is utterly no logic behind this point of view, Tim, and you know it.
I didn't think it was THAT bad. I think someone can ethically take the
approach that lag is part of ICS, and if you time forfeit, better luck
next time. I don't hold this opinion, but I am not ready to villify
those that do. At least not until ICS has an official stance.
>>I can be in time trouble no matter what time control I have, especially with
>>small increments. Even if my opponent warned me about lag, I may not have
>>the time to try to figure out whether I should flag or not.
>
>If your opponent warns you about lag, you should have no option, except
> to in some way address the situation. This means courtesyabort,
>adjournment, or some such. Once you are warned about lag, flagging
>should be illegal (particularly if the opponent would not have been in
>time trouble without it, as is usually the case).
Whoa! You want a magical "My clock doesn't matter any more" button?
My opponent gets a 15 second whiff of lag on move six, proceeds to
completely mismanage his clock, and I can't flag? Sure, it would
nice if we could get rid of lag-flagging, but not if it means punishing
people without lag.
>>And how do I know this? Lag isn't exactly the most quantifiable thing
>>around. I am playing 10 10, a pawn up in the middlegame, and you say you're
>>lagging. What should I do later in the game, when your clock runs from
>>0:10 to 0:00? 0:30 to 0:00? 1:00 to 0:00? My clock only has 0:05 on it,
>>and the position is real complicated, so stopping to check on you could
>>lose the game for me.
>
>If the opponents choose to continue the game, the best solution is that
>it immediately becomes a "non-clock" type of game. In other words,
>*Neither* player should call the other's flag. Note that an alternate
>proposal has been made on this point (which I posted, after receiving it
>in email) which is allso IMHO ethically sound.
If I wanted to play without a clock, I would have requested ungodly time
controls. I want a clocked game. I NEED a clocked game, because I am
not used to clocks, and if I ever want to walk away with the U1800 prize
at one of your tournaments, I better learn how to manage my time.
Here is a combination of proposals I have heard. You are lagging. You
suggest to me that we play a clockless game. If I say yes, we go ahead,
no flagging. If I say no, you either accept the outcome of the game
regardless of your lag, or you resign immediately. Since ratings aren't
a big thing, a resign is as good as an abort. Better even, since you
don't have to try to make me agree to it.
Steve Mayer
: (Paul A. Lane) writes:
[stuff on lag-flagging deleted]
: >Also, no blitz game should ever be subject to those kinds of restrictions.
: >If you play blitz, lag is a real part of the game.
: >
: >Paul
: It shouldn't be. It isn't in club chess, and it shouldn't be on ICS.
No, in club blitz chess, you often play touch move. Every format of
chess has its specific drawbacks; you're not going to find a perfect form
of the game.
-Steve
John R Coffey
up and gaining time in the opening and early middle game. But when
things got tough then this person started to take a lot more time
when eventually I was able to flag. My opponent claimed he lost
becuase of lag, but I don't buy it, because the next game he had
lots of time left when I mated him - more than he started with.
There is a natural human tendency to not want to blame our slow
brain cells for losing. I think this contributes to most of the
complaints about lag.
90% of the time I have no trouble with lag, but those who do should
play slower time limits, as I do when lag becomes a problem.
As rating is not very important, I don't see it as much of an issue.
John
James Alan Riechel
>Ron_Ko...@transarc.com writes:
>>Actually, now that I think about it ... it would be pretty tough to
>>ensure that the client software doesn't lie about its time usage.
>>How about this idea:
>> Let's be happy with what we've got.
I posted on this message ~.5 weeks ago. There *is* a method for ensuring
that the client software doesn't lie --- well, at least it would be very
difficult to circumvent, and would easily keep honest people honest as well
as a large group of potentially dishonest people. The method I refer to is
a method that is also used for NETREK clients, which is only a network game,
but in this case it's fighting with starships (or playing hockey) rather than
playing chess. Method: (1) Make only executables available, compiled for
the the various machines, because: (2) one of the first things the executable
does is verying that it is a "blessed" copy. There are various ways of
accomplishing (2).
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
John R Coffey
>John
Also: What in life is as fair as possible? Your rating on the server
is a reflection of many things: Your skill and your lag and the time
limits you choose and the front end software you run. A rating of
1500 only tells you that you have a 50% chance of beating another
1500 player, and it tells you verry little else.
John.
James Alan Riechel
>>John
>John.
IMHO, this misses the point. The idea of a front-end keeping track of actual
time comsumed so that lag-time doesn't count has nothing directly to do with any
argument about my, yours or anybody's ratings. The idea is to provide the
best chess server possible. Amoung the features that make a chess server
good is realism. A chess server that actually gives you five minutes of
thinking/move-entering time in a 5 0 game is realistic, i.e. this is the
situation we encounter outside of the ICS micro-world. Only at this point in
the argument is it sensible to talk about ratings. When the chess server
updates your rating when you lose/draw/win, it is under the assumption that
each player had access to his full time. These ratings systems are realistic,
i.e. there are what we find outside of ICS, and they compute based on the
assumption of full access to your available time.
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
Johannes Fuernkranz
Totally agreed. I often get flagged when I have lag. I really don't care.
I can't remember that anyone has complained to me that I had flagged him
because of lag, but I probably have. I usually don't flag when I am certain
that the other guy has lag, but this is mostly because some people are close
to suicide when it happens to them. A won or lost game on ICS is just not
worth it, IMHO.
There have been claims that lag-flagging should be treated as abuse, which
I think is absolutely ridiculous. If you find a way to check whether somebody
has lag or not, then implement it into the clocks. Otherwise leave it the
way it is. But I wouldn't like the clock-based solution very much either
(although it definitely would save me some games), becuase I really don't
care for blitz games lasting more than 15 minutes altogether. I don't want
to play blitz games when I or my opponent have terrible lag so the game
will continue forever, although both are moving fast.
I've had people whining that I should abort positions where I was several
pieces up and their flag was down (they kept on whining, but refused to
move), because they felt they blundered in lag-caused time trouble. I *did*
abort, but I really hate to play guys like that.
If your ego can't take lag-caused losses, it shouldn't play rated blitz
games on ICS. It's just that simple.
Juffi
James Alan Riechel
>I didn't think it was THAT bad. I think someone can ethically take the
>approach that lag is part of ICS, and if you time forfeit, better luck
>next time. I don't hold this opinion, but I am not ready to villify
>those that do. At least not until ICS has an official stance.
Ok, but question is: Do we want ICS to be realistic? Do we want ICS to
provide an environment for playing chess that is as close as possible to
tournament and club chess? Or do we simply want to borrow some things (like
the use of clocks) but ignore others? How important is it that each player,
in principle, should have access to his/her full clock time? With the
exception of faulty clocks, in tournament and club chess it is taken for
granted. One more question: if we're really not concerned that each player
have full access to his/her time (because of lag, of course), why are we
even using clocks in the first place? Isn't the fundamental idea behind the
use of clocks in chess that each player has access to the same amount of
time (or their full alloted time if the starting times for the players differ)?
In short: If we want ICS to be realistic then we should not count lag time!
It is another question entirely whether it is possible/feasible to implement
front-end clients to do this in a reasonably secure fashion. I believe it is
possible as other networks games and servers, such as NETREK, have already
done so. (Please see my previous posts on this point.)
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
Andy McFarland
Both players get to think on the lag time.
(T. M. Cuffel)
True, but the player who is lagging still has the advantage of more time
for think about the immediate move. Thinking on your opponent's time is
always less productive. That's how time odds work.
(Andy McFarland)
I agree that thinking on your opponent's time is less productive.
Implicit in my argument is that lag occurs equally before and after the
lagged player transmits their move. This way both players have the same
amount of time off the clock as on.
I just wish there was a way to reduce lag.
-- Zek
Johannes Fuernkranz
James Alan Riechel <jrie...@gaia.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>In short: If we want ICS to be realistic then we should not count lag time!
No. It doesn't make the situation any better when I can think minutes on my
opponent's time, because he is lagged. I'll just get bored.
I play blitz because I want an upper limit on the total real time a game can
take.
Juffi
T. M. Cuffel
>
>>I didn't think it was THAT bad. I think someone can ethically take the
>>approach that lag is part of ICS, and if you time forfeit, better luck
>>next time. I don't hold this opinion, but I am not ready to villify
>>those that do. At least not until ICS has an official stance.
>
>Ok, but question is: Do we want ICS to be realistic? Do we want ICS to
>provide an environment for playing chess that is as close as possible to
>tournament and club chess? Or do we simply want to borrow some things (like
>the use of clocks) but ignore others? How important is it that each player,
>in principle, should have access to his/her full clock time? With the
>exception of faulty clocks, in tournament and club chess it is taken for
>granted. One more question: if we're really not concerned that each player
>have full access to his/her time (because of lag, of course), why are we
>even using clocks in the first place? Isn't the fundamental idea behind the
>use of clocks in chess that each player has access to the same amount of
>time (or their full alloted time if the starting times for the players differ)?
Not counting lag would make the clock unpredictable. This is not realistic.
Another thing that is not realistic is room constantly filled with 50-
150 chessplayers of all abilities, all with their own boards and
clocks. The room isn't crowded and doesn't stink. You can talk, smoke,
and drink whenever you want, and never disturb a game. I think
emulating a chess club "realism" has limited milage, because we are
doing things a "real" chess club couldn't dream of. One of those
things is high volume chess on demand. The integrity of each
individual game does not have to be as important, because I can play
20 games a day, every day. Try that at your local chess club.
Why use clock in the first place? So I will have an idea of how long
my game will last, and what pace it would be played at. Not counting
lag will make this impossible to predict. And like you say, clocks are
to insure equal time. Not random time. Also, you forget that there
is lag on EVERY move. If each of my moves lagged by one second, I
could still play 5 0 about the same as if I had no lag, but now I
get ~40 extra seconds a game in my piggy bank, a big advantage. Finally,
I think you are overestimating the effect lag has on a game. Most
games are largly unaffected by lag, and randomizing the clocks for the
few that are is overkill. The cure is worse than the disease.
>
Johannes Fuernkranz
>
>(1) How often does a single lag last for as long as a minute or more?
>My experience, telnet-ing from Atlanta, Georgia, is that I experience at
>most 10 to 15 seconds of lag and my average lag in probably between 3 and
>5 seconds. If this is the general case, then there is no need for you to
>worry about having minutes and minutes of extra time to be utterly bored
>(perhaps you should pick up a new game to play). However:
I'm starting to wonder about what amounts of lag people are talking here.
When I say I'm lagging this means that I wasn't able to issue a command
for at least 1 minute. This also means that I'm not able to inform my
opponent that I have lag. He won't get the information before he has flagged
me. I often end up with lags of 3 minutes and more. I log out and play some
other time.
An average lag of 3 to 5 minutes could easily be compensated with increments
and is IMHO not worth talking about.
>
>I don't see why a new system couldn't allow two types of game: (i)
>the regular type --- wall clock time, and (ii) the don't count lag-time
>type. If you're terrible opposed to (ii) you could exclusively play games of
>type (i).
Fair suggestions. I second this proposal.
>
>(2) While it is true that games that don't count lag-time are likely to
>last longer, they WILL NOT decrease the responce of the system/network. If
>your opponent lagged for two minutes in a game of type (i) then you have
>to wait for two minutes for your opponent's NEXT move. If your opponent
>lagged for two minutes in a game of type (ii) then you have to wait for
>two minutes for your opponent's NEXT move. Notice there is no difference!!
This is true. I don't see your point, however. This is exactly why I would
prefer to play games on a clock that includes lag.
>(3) My argument was just that the nifty thing with real chess clocks in
>tournament or club chess is this: THEY GUARANTEE THAT EACH PLAY HAS THE
>SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. This, to me, is the most important feature of having
>clocks in the first place. I realize on the INTERNET that this will never
>be exactly possible, but we can try to approximate it. Instead of
>guarantee-ing that a 5 0 game will be finished in at most 10 minutes (assuming
>each player will flag at the first opportunity), we can at least guarantee
>that each player has equal time. A 5 0 game, however, may in fact last longer
>than 10 minutes maximum. But I conjecture that in the vast majority of cases
>it wouldn't be much more than 10 minutes, and that the benefits of such
>a system outway the negative aspects. Besides, there can always be two
>types of game (as suggested above).
No. When I am at work (and I only can play there) I am most interested in
knowing in advance how long a game can take.
>
>(4) When I was logged on to ICS last night, indigo said that with
>lag introduced that sometimes one player would get more time to consider
>his move --- i.e. that the position on his board would be one with him/her
>to move. But if one works this out on paper one finds that when lag is
>involved, the position that a player sees is NOT the position with him/herself
>to play but with his opponent to play. indigo made an argument that having
>the position with yourself to move was an advantage, but this never occurs!
>
True.
Juffi
Johannes Fuernkranz
Ed Hanway <j...@raster.kodak.com> wrote:
>
>How about when you're flagged on move 8? Happened to me twice yesterday,
>by two different people. My "solution" is to keep my own list of people that
Twice? See, that's something that's getting hard to understand.
If that happens to me once I either disconnect or play a slower game.
Lag is not only bothering you, it's also a pain in the ass for your opponent.
Juffi
Johannes Fuernkranz
In club chess you also can win games when your opponent doesn't move out
of chess to add another difference.
Comparing ICS to club chess is completely off the point.
Where's the guy who serves coffee?
Juffi
Johannes Fuernkranz
>>In <2qrkt7$m...@lace.Colorado.EDU> per...@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>
>>>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
>>
>>consider it unethical -- you agree when you start the game to play
>>with a particular time control and with a particular clock arbitrating
>>that time control. I tend not to flag opponents who lag -- I'm not as
>>concerned about winning or losing (that is, I try to win, but it's not
>>such a tragedy if I lose) -- but if other people flag me the moment my
>>time control lapses, I can't see how to blame them.
>
>I cannot agree. Yes, when you agree when you start the game to play
>with a particular time control and clock arbitrating the game. BUT lag
>usually affects one side more than another during a game if it affects
>either side. This, in my view, is NOT something you agree to. Lag-
>flagging is taking unfair advantage of this situation. That's why I've
>made it a policy never to do it (and I never have, to date). And that's
>why, in my notes, I have a public list of people who have done it to me.
>
I cannot agree. When I log on to ICS from Austria, I know that I will have
some lag. And after one or two games I know how bad it is and ajust my
increments to the situation.
And when I play (on *very* good days) 2 0 blitz games with TheDane, I just
know in advance I will lose half of them on time, because he's sitting
right on the server and my moves have to go through Germany's bottleneck.
But I tell you, it's great fun.
>>>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>>>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
>>
>>Maybe my answer in #1 invalidates this answer, but I do have solutions
>>to the problem.
>>a) play only unrated games. Then you won't feel the same sense of loss
>>when lag strikes.
>>b) offer an unlimited time control -- has this been implemented?
>>I guess something like 1440 0 would approximate it. Or 1440 86400.
>
>This is not a solution. ESPECIALLY since 90%+ of the time lag is
>completely unpredictable.
The moment when lag occurs may be unpredictable, but the fact that you will
have lag is definitely not. You don't know which games you will lose against
a higher rated opponent, but you can be quite sure that you will lose
some of them.
>
>>c) if you suffer lag, immediately resign. That way, you won't feel
>>angry at your opponent should he or she flag you -- and it is no more
>>artificial than a draw or a courtesy-abort. Don't you think aborting a
>>game in an unbalanced position is just as much a tragedy as a loss on
>>time in that situation? All that work and anticipation, then ...
>><null>.
>
>Why? It gives your opponent the feeling of glee, that s/he "won the
>game", which is completely unethical. A courtesyabort destroys what may
>be a very very interesting game, but it's fair to both sides, since the
>game isn't won till the fat lady sings...
I start to see your problem. You can't stand the pain that it causes when
somebody (unjustly) feels superior. I can understand that. But can't
see what you want to do about it. I have decisively won games and my
opponents have claimed that they would have won, if ...
>> That's what's unfortunate about lag, not how the game is
>>recorded. If you resign when you suffer lag, then you can direct your
>>frustration in the appropriate direction -- a less-than-perfect
>>(though still quite wonderful) system for playing chess over the net.
>
>I disagree. If you resign when suffering lag, then in lots of cases,
>your rating will be largely a function of your connection's quality,
>which most of us here have absolutely zero control of. In other words,
>chess will have ceased to become what most of us love most about it -- a
>pure contest between the will, calculating ability, and intuition of the
>two players.
Where do you play chess?
Juffi
Johannes Fuernkranz
<Ron_Ko...@transarc.com> wrote:
>Actually, now that I think about it ... it would be pretty tough to
>ensure that the client software doesn't lie about its time usage.
>
>How about this idea:
>
> Let's be happy with what we've got.
>
>
>
Gets my vote too.
Thanks to all who provide this service.
Juffi
James Alan Riechel
>But I wouldn't like the clock-based solution very much either
>(although it definitely would save me some games), becuase I really don't
>care for blitz games lasting more than 15 minutes altogether. I don't want
>to play blitz games when I or my opponent have terrible lag so the game
>will continue forever, although both are moving fast.
If your or your opponent's lag time exceeds some threshold (perhaps 1.5 times
the real-time) then perhaps there could be a "laggabort" command so that
you wouldn't have to finish any blitz games that drag on and on. Or perhaps
a "lagadjourn" command.
Also, since this information would be available anyway, it wouldn't be
difficult to examine the "lag profile" of a potential opponent. Perhaps
this info could be thrown in with the other info provided with the finger
command. If somebody requests a game with you, but you dislike their
"lag profile/history," then you could chose to refuse.
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
James Alan Riechel
>In article <jriechel....@cc.gatech.edu>,
>James Alan Riechel <jrie...@gaia.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>cuf...@cs.colorado.edu (T. M. Cuffel) writes:
>>
>>>I didn't think it was THAT bad. I think someone can ethically take the
>>>approach that lag is part of ICS, and if you time forfeit, better luck
>>>next time. I don't hold this opinion, but I am not ready to villify
>>>those that do. At least not until ICS has an official stance.
>>
>>Ok, but question is: Do we want ICS to be realistic? Do we want ICS to
>>provide an environment for playing chess that is as close as possible to
>>tournament and club chess? Or do we simply want to borrow some things (like
>>the use of clocks) but ignore others? How important is it that each player,
>>in principle, should have access to his/her full clock time? With the
>>exception of faulty clocks, in tournament and club chess it is taken for
>>granted. One more question: if we're really not concerned that each player
>>have full access to his/her time (because of lag, of course), why are we
>>even using clocks in the first place? Isn't the fundamental idea behind the
>>use of clocks in chess that each player has access to the same amount of
>>time (or their full alloted time if the starting times for the players differ)?
>Not counting lag would make the clock unpredictable. This is not realistic.
Ok, so you posit that a PREDICTABLE clock-mechanism is more important than a
clock-mechanism that (truly) provides each player with EQUAL TIME.
I disagree. Because there is no such thing as perfect coordination on a
large scale network like the INTERNET, we will never be able to have perfect
clock mechanisms. However, we can still decide which features of the chess
clock are the most important to keep. Also, is the chess clock really
going to be UNPREDICTABLE? Sure, less time than has actually passed may
be deducted from your and your opponent's clock, but it is still guaranteed
(for a 0 increment game) that the time will always DECREASE. Sounds
pretty predictable to me.
>Another thing that is not realistic is room constantly filled with 50-
>150 chessplayers of all abilities, all with their own boards and
>clocks. The room isn't crowded and doesn't stink. You can talk, smoke,
>and drink whenever you want, and never disturb a game. I think
>emulating a chess club "realism" has limited milage, because we are
>doing things a "real" chess club couldn't dream of.
Fine. You can take my point to an extreme if it gives you pleasure. But
please note that my point was the following: it is desirable to make ICS
more realistic than less realistic. Also note that we really do not need
to be at a chess club or a tournament. Our chess clocks (THE REAL
PHYSICAL ONES) can be used anywhere we want, and they (albeit malfunciton)
always ensure that each player has access to his/her full time.
>One of those
>things is high volume chess on demand. The integrity of each
>individual game does not have to be as important, because I can play
>20 games a day, every day. Try that at your local chess club.
What you're saying is that you really don't care if the clocks don't
really work that well, or that is some cases they may be unfair. Ok,
that's you. But apparently other people disagree. It's my opinion that
good clocks are important to chess. PERIOD.
>Why use clock in the first place? So I will have an idea of how long
>my game will last, and what pace it would be played at. Not counting
>lag will make this impossible to predict. And like you say, clocks are
>to insure equal time. Not random time. Also, you forget that there
>is lag on EVERY move. If each of my moves lagged by one second, I
>could still play 5 0 about the same as if I had no lag, but now I
>get ~40 extra seconds a game in my piggy bank, a big advantage. Finally,
>I think you are overestimating the effect lag has on a game. Most
>games are largly unaffected by lag, and randomizing the clocks for the
>few that are is overkill. The cure is worse than the disease.
>>
If these enhancements are made, there is nothing to stop there then being
two types of game: (i) regular games where lag time counts against you,
and (ii) lag adjusted games. Games of type (i) GUARANTEE THAT THE GAME
WILL END WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME. Games of type (ii) GUARANTEE THAT EACH
PLAYER HAS EQUAL TIME. They are both valuable! Let's have both!!
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
Fabian Maeser
per...@qso.Colorado.EDU writes:
>1. Do you agree that lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating?
I wouldn't say cheating - it's "unsportmanslike"...
Of course, there are several kinds of lag. There are people who have very
bad
connections to the ICS server and sometimes get "frozen" after a few moves
(Hi oleg!), in this case it is very unfair to call one's opponent's flag.
I usually have lags of a few seconds, this is quite embarrassing in 5 0
games,
but how should your opponent know if you have lag or if you're just
thinking...
Well, tell him! Most players will accept to abort the game. If not, you
lose one
game - so what ?! Just don't play this player anymore...
In the first case of really bad lag it should be possible to do
something...
Maybe an admin could "unrate" the game or something - Well, I knoe this
means lots of work, but it's the best idea I have right now.
One more thing, *NEVER* complain about being flagged in a dead lost
position...
>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
> action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
There are already too many "ICS moralists"! I'm against this "taking
action"
by admins (of course there are exceptions...) This reminds me of the
discussion
if it is "abuse" to beat a computer many times the same way. If someone's
happy doing it let him do it!
>3. What methods can be used to allow Admins to verify legitimate cases
>of lag-flagging and filter out the fallacious claims?
Replay the game...
febi
James Alan Riechel
Ok, a few questions and comments:
(1) How often does a single lag last for as long as a minute or more?
My experience, telnet-ing from Atlanta, Georgia, is that I experience at
most 10 to 15 seconds of lag and my average lag in probably between 3 and
5 seconds. If this is the general case, then there is no need for you to
worry about having minutes and minutes of extra time to be utterly bored
(perhaps you should pick up a new game to play). However:
I don't see why a new system couldn't allow two types of game: (i)
the regular type --- wall clock time, and (ii) the don't count lag-time
type. If you're terrible opposed to (ii) you could exclusively play games of
type (i).
(2) While it is true that games that don't count lag-time are likely to
last longer, they WILL NOT decrease the responce of the system/network. If
your opponent lagged for two minutes in a game of type (i) then you have
to wait for two minutes for your opponent's NEXT move. If your opponent
lagged for two minutes in a game of type (ii) then you have to wait for
two minutes for your opponent's NEXT move. Notice there is no difference!!
(3) My argument was just that the nifty thing with real chess clocks in
tournament or club chess is this: THEY GUARANTEE THAT EACH PLAY HAS THE
SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. This, to me, is the most important feature of having
clocks in the first place. I realize on the INTERNET that this will never
be exactly possible, but we can try to approximate it. Instead of
guarantee-ing that a 5 0 game will be finished in at most 10 minutes (assuming
each player will flag at the first opportunity), we can at least guarantee
that each player has equal time. A 5 0 game, however, may in fact last longer
than 10 minutes maximum. But I conjecture that in the vast majority of cases
it wouldn't be much more than 10 minutes, and that the benefits of such
a system outway the negative aspects. Besides, there can always be two
types of game (as suggested above).
(4) When I was logged on to ICS last night, indigo said that with
lag introduced that sometimes one player would get more time to consider
his move --- i.e. that the position on his board would be one with him/her
to move. But if one works this out on paper one finds that when lag is
involved, the position that a player sees is NOT the position with him/herself
to play but with his opponent to play. indigo made an argument that having
the position with yourself to move was an advantage, but this never occurs!
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
M N Oakden
of lag-flagging. As a long time sufferer of lag I would like to stick my
oar in and offer some of my thoughts/opinions on the matter.
I specifically want to address a number of points which have been commonly
raised in this thread, in shouted discussions about lag on the ICS itself,
and in peoples own personal lag-policy statements in their ICS stats.
In no particular order, here are a few common points of view along with my
own (half-baked) responses...
o "The clock is part of chess"
Many people have argued that the clock is an integral part of chess,
particularly blitz chess. I do not disagree with this. I do,
however, take exception to the assumption that the ICS clock, even
when affected by lag, is an integral part of the chess game. Any
clock which allows a player to be lost on time whilst they still have
plenty of time left on their local clock should not be allowed to decide
the game. This said, I can see no way to take this into account other
than by goodwill between players (more about this later).
o "People who play blitz chess shouldn't moan about losing on time"
I am left particularly cold by the argument that people are asking to be
lag-flagged if they play short time controls. I have absolutely given
up 0 increment chess specifically because of lag. I now play only
with 4/5/6 minutes initial time and 12 seconds increment, with a
preference for 6 12. It is, however, sometimes difficult to find
opponents of similar rating who are willing to play such time controls.
Furthermore, many people, myself included, rarely have time during the
day for longer games. Why I should be expected to be happy about losing
games solely because of network problems just because I haven't usually
got chunks fo time of the order half an hour or more to spare
during the day is beyond my understanding. Anyway, as I said in
the previous point, I find it an abuse of chess terminology to
refer to being flagged whilst lagged as losing on time --- If I
still have time on my (local) clock I ain't lost on time.
o "People who complain about being lag-flagged must care too much about
their ICS ratings"
Hogwash. If I was that bothered about my ICS rating I would have given
up playing on the aics server long ago---my blitz rating at one time
dropped by more than 300 points in going from a spell of good network
connections to a period of lousy, laggy connections. Every time I
manage to get my rating on the up again, along comes Mr(s). Lag and
hands my hard fought ratings points on a plate to someone just cause
(s)he happens to experience less network packet loss than me.
I play on aics because I enjoy chess and I enjoy most of the company
there. I like having the large choice of opponents that this
successful server affords to me. I am not merely whingeing because "I
care too much about my ICS rating" I am trying, by discussing the
problem of lag with as many people as possible, to help find ways of
*improving* the chess server.
o "OK --- so I'm meant to be happy about giving up games whenever my
opponent screams LAG then!"
No. I would not advocate forcing anybody to abort a game when they are
clearly won/winning just because their opponent (either honestly or
falsely) claims lag. This, at the moment and until someone cleverer
than me finds a solution, should remain at the discretion of the
players. If I find myself lagged, in a lost/losing position,
and the time control is near, I resign ( of course, often my
resignation is itself lagged and I get flagged in the meantime).
If I am just slightly worse then I would request an adjournment
(I believe there is now a "moretime" command to add time to an
opponents clock in an adjourned game) to play the game out when
there is less lag. True, I lose lots of practice in complicating
in lost positions by doing this but it seems like the best
approach currently available. (Anyway if I want to practice
playing losing positions I only have to take up the Freds as a
defence to e4 :-- 1 e4 f5 2 ef Kf7 :^) )
It is sad that so many players lack the common decency not to take
advantage of others' poor network connections. Being lag flagged when
winning or with a forced draw in a worse position is an extremely
annoying occurence. It does, however, appear that there are not any
ways round this which do not themselves present other problems. (If
only telnet timestamped it's packets! :) ).
Some people, including me, have advocated modifying client programs
to send the local elapsed time for a move along with the move itself.
This does, however, lend itself to cheating---it would be relatively
simple for people to modify their client code to give them a slow
clock. I do believe, however, that the number of people who would
cheat like this would be far less than the number of people who would
benefit from lag being taken into account. It has been suggested
that just releasing executables a la nettrek which send the times in
encrypted format would make this more secure, and I do not doubt that
it would but I do feel a little uneasy about this (maybe I'm too
bitten by the freely avaailable source code, FSF type bug!). Perhaps
the server could keep track of the amount of "lag correction" being
applied by each players interface and spot check via ping or whatever,
noting any persistently anomalous corrections. Of course this may,
due to the intermittent nature of lag, be unworkable. It's just an
idea.
Another solution, closely allied to the FICS distributed servers
idea, is to have one central server into which one logs on to find
opponents and on which one can, if the lag is OK, play, along with a
set of satellite servers (I would advocate discouraging/not allowing
people to directly log in to these in order to keep the playing pool
as large as possible) so that people could choose, on a game by game
basis, the sub-server which is likely to have the least mutual lag and
play the game there. There could even be an option to, at the
agreement of the players (or intervention of an ADMIN) to move to a
different sub-server in mid game if the lag becomes too bad at the
current server. The sub-server would then report back to the main
server the results of the game. The difference between this and the
fics ratings server/ many chess servers idea is that people initially
log on to the central "master" server and arrange all their games
through the master server.
Anyway --- just my ha'pennorth!
Mark Oakden
(aics,eics,fics: Sheridan)
oak...@hep.ph.liv.ac.uk
--
M.N.O...@durham.ac.uk | Centre for Particle Theory, | "Spring rain -
19681::MNO | University of Durham, | under trees
| Durham, DH1 3LH, UK. | a crystal stream."
Steve Mayer
: In article <smayerCp...@netcom.com>,: >: In article <palane.7...@pv742b.vincent.iastate.edu> palane@iastate.
: > edu: >: (Paul A. Lane) writes:
: > [stuff on lag-flagging deleted]
: >: >Also, no blitz game should ever be subject to those kinds of
: >: >restrictions.
: >: >If you play blitz, lag is a real part of the game.
: >: >
: >: >Paul
: >
: >: It shouldn't be. It isn't in club chess, and it shouldn't be on ICS.
: >
: > No, in club blitz chess, you often play touch move. Every format of
: >chess has its specific drawbacks; you're not going to find a perfect form
: >of the game.
: In club chess you also can win games when your opponent doesn't move out
: of chess to add another difference.
: Comparing ICS to club chess is completely off the point.
: Where's the guy who serves coffee?
Sorry, a) I don't understand what your first sentence means, b) if you
mean that if your opponent doesn't move in club blitz you can win a
game...well, yeah. You can also win in postal chess (or any other form
of chess) if your opponent doesn't move), and c) the point of comparing ICS to
club blitz (or any other form of competitive chess) is that no form of the
game is without its drawbacks. For instance, opponents in postal chess may lie
about when they received a card, they might use a computer, etc.
-Steve
John R Coffey
>>>John
>>John.
>--
>James Riechel
>jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
I don't think you have said anything different from what I
have been saying.
Eric S. Perlman
How is "touch-move" not fair to each side?
Your argument is pure obfuscation.
Eric S. Perlman
>In article <2qumpu$7...@lace.colorado.edu>,
>Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>>>
>>>A possible counter argument would go like this (note this is NOT my view):
>>>
>>>Bottom line, we are here to play chess. Chess involves clocks, and
>>>yours is out of time. How and why that happened is not my concern.
>>>I might sound cold, but if it gets around that screaming lag with get
>>>an abort from me, I never win again. You nap OTB, you'd be lucky if
>>>your opponent wakes you up, much less gives you your time back. The
>>>long and short of it your computer, your connection, your problem.
>>>When we agreed to a match, it was for better or for worse. We knew the risks.
>>>Your lag could just as easily wreck a game for me, so maybe I want a win
>>>for my trouble.
>>
>>In a word, BULL DUST. If you fall asleep in an OTB game, it's your
>>fault. Completely. Lag is not your fault. And in the case of 90%+ of
>>the people who play on ICS, they have no control over their lag.
>>
>>There is utterly no logic behind this point of view, Tim, and you know it.
>
>I didn't think it was THAT bad. I think someone can ethically take the
>approach that lag is part of ICS, and if you time forfeit, better luck
>next time. I don't hold this opinion, but I am not ready to villify
>those that do. At least not until ICS has an official stance.
I, for one, will not wait till ICS has an official stance. People who
lag-flag should be villified. They're cheating. Pure and simple.
>>>I can be in time trouble no matter what time control I have, especially with
>>>small increments. Even if my opponent warned me about lag, I may not have
>>>the time to try to figure out whether I should flag or not.
>>
>>If your opponent warns you about lag, you should have no option, except
>> to in some way address the situation. This means courtesyabort,
>>adjournment, or some such. Once you are warned about lag, flagging
>>should be illegal (particularly if the opponent would not have been in
>>time trouble without it, as is usually the case).
>
>Whoa! You want a magical "My clock doesn't matter any more" button?
>My opponent gets a 15 second whiff of lag on move six, proceeds to
>completely mismanage his clock, and I can't flag? Sure, it would
>nice if we could get rid of lag-flagging, but not if it means punishing
>people without lag.
Most of the lags which cause people to get lag-flagged -- at least 95%
-- are of the >1 minute variety. That's not what I'm talking about, and
you know it.
>>>And how do I know this? Lag isn't exactly the most quantifiable thing
>>>around. I am playing 10 10, a pawn up in the middlegame, and you say you're
>>>lagging. What should I do later in the game, when your clock runs from
>>>0:10 to 0:00? 0:30 to 0:00? 1:00 to 0:00? My clock only has 0:05 on it,
>>>and the position is real complicated, so stopping to check on you could
>>>lose the game for me.
>>
>>If the opponents choose to continue the game, the best solution is that
>>it immediately becomes a "non-clock" type of game. In other words,
>>*Neither* player should call the other's flag. Note that an alternate
>>proposal has been made on this point (which I posted, after receiving it
>>in email) which is allso IMHO ethically sound.
>
>If I wanted to play without a clock, I would have requested ungodly time
>controls. I want a clocked game. I NEED a clocked game, because I am
>not used to clocks, and if I ever want to walk away with the U1800 prize
>at one of your tournaments, I better learn how to manage my time.
Fair enough. Then you should abort the game in some fashion.
>Here is a combination of proposals I have heard. You are lagging. You
>suggest to me that we play a clockless game. If I say yes, we go ahead,
>no flagging. If I say no, you either accept the outcome of the game
>regardless of your lag, or you resign immediately. Since ratings aren't
>a big thing, a resign is as good as an abort. Better even, since you
>don't have to try to make me agree to it.
No. People should not have to resign because of lag. I'll go further.
It is absolutely unethical to force someone to resign because of lag.
If you don't agree to play the game out, and instead offer the abort,
they should have no choice but to agree.
Eric S. Perlman
>In article <2qukuv$6...@lace.colorado.edu>,>>In article <2quivn$5...@lace.Colorado.EDU> cuf...@cs.colorado.edu (T. M. Cuffel) writes:
>>>In article <2qtabq$f...@lace.colorado.edu>,>>>>No, I am *NOT* extremely worried about my rating on the chess server.
>>>>In fact this has nothing to do with my motivation. Does it surprise
>>>>you, Dave, that some people attach high importance to the need for a
>>>>code of ethical behavior? I have run chess tournaments for 6 years,
>>>>including tourneys as large as 219 players. Such behavior would not be
>>>>allowed at most chess clubs, even in informal play. It should not be
>>>>allowed on ICS either.
>>>
>>>Is this true? What would you do with someone who "lagged" over the board
>>>(nacrolepsy, petite mal siezures, attention disorders)? Could you give
>>>them special treatment? What about dishonest people claiming to
>>>suffer from these problems? What about dishonest people who actually
>>>suffer from these problems and using it to their advantage?
>>
>>KTim, how often does this actually happen at a tournament (e.g. lying
>>about such a physical or psychological disability)?
>
>Probably never. I thought maybe we could shed a little light on the
>situation with this analogy.
>
>>I mean,
>>really? I've never, *ever* seen or heard of such a thing in all my 6
>>years of TDing and 15 years as a tournament player.
>>
>>About the closest thing I've eer had happen (and believe me, I do *NOT*
>>consider it in anyway analogous to lagging) to lagging in a USCF rated
>>tournament was at the Benjamin Gerash memorial tournament four years ago
>>in Denver. My opponent's car was broken into *during* our game. His
>>window was shattered and his new CD player ripped right out of the
>>dashboard. Our game was at a tense, critical juncture; I had a
>>significant edge. No doubt if I had wished I could have taken advantage
>>of his state of mind and won easily. Three moves later I chose to offer
>>him a draw, which he accepted. Why? I would consider it unethical to
>>take advantage of a player in such unfair circumstances. Indeed, if a
>>player's car was robbed during a tournament game and s/he requested the
>>game be adjourned immediately, I would grant it for this exact reason.
>
>Sounds good to me.
>>
>>Hdicapped players *DO* play in tournaments. It is within the rules for
>>handicapped players to have assistants whose purpose is to either move
>>pieces or be responsible for their health while at tournaments. Note
>>that their opponents get offered the same assistance if this is to be
>>the case. See, for reference, pages 145-149 of the new USCF rule book
>>(and in particular rules 35B and various parts of 35F).
>
>Iactually did a little research into this a while back.
>>
>>The bottom line is, it *is* perfectly within the rules to make
>>allowances for handicapped players. For fairness, when a handicapped
>>player is offered such allowances or assistance, the saoffer is made to
>>the non-handicapped player.
>>
>>Let me turn the question around, Tim. Let's say you're playing an
>>opponent who has an epileptic-like seizure during time pressure of a
>>tournament game. While the seizure is going on, his flag falls. Are
>>you going to call his flag? I wouldn't, and I would seriously question
>>the ethics of anyone who would.
>
>Of course I wouldn't. But that was not what I was asking. A petite mal
>siezure causes one to stare into space for a short period of time.
>I would not flag a person whom I knew was in such a state. But what
>if it happened earlier? Should I put time back on their clock?
>Should offer a draw to offset the disadvantage? What should the TD
>do?
>
>I think they would be no way to compesate for this handicap, and I don't
>think lag can be compensated for either. At least not fairly.
>>
>>The pro-lag-flagging side is asking that we call the flag in such
>>situations. Now do you see why it makes me, and the vast majority of
>>other players on ICS, so angry, when we are lag-flagged?
Difficult question, and a good one. First of all, if memory serves (and
I am no physician or psychologist so please correct me on this if I am
wrong) sometimes petit mal seizures come in bunches,sometimes they
don't. IF the player having the seizure tells you of the situation and
you and s/he come to me and request an adjournment for this reason, I
would grant it. Without hesitation. If they choose to play on, I would
say you're right -- there is probably little if anything the TD can do
about it.
However, I don't think we are talking about analogous problems. It is
impossible to name a single player on ICS who is not affected by lag.
It would be very difficult to find a player who has not lost a game
because of it.
But ICS is not a tournament. You know that and I know it. It's a lot
more like a club. And further, epileptics can usually control their
condition through medication if memory serves. If they don't take it,
that's their fault. So I don't think the analogy applies.
Paul Colley
>No, I am *NOT* extremely worried about my rating on the chess server.
>In fact this has nothing to do with my motivation. Does it surprise
>you, Dave, that some people attach high importance to the need for a
>code of ethical behavior? I have run chess tournaments for 6 years,
>including tourneys as large as 219 players. Such behavior would not be
>allowed at most chess clubs, even in informal play. It should not be
>allowed on ICS either.
There are many different games in existence. For players of a game,
it is usually considered "ethical" to play by the rules.
On ICS, the stated rules are that if your clock is negative, and your
opponent types "flag", you lose.
I can understand that you don't *like* this. I can even understand
that you don't think it is *fair*. You're welcome to lobby for a
change in the rules. But I refuse to classify this behaviour as
unethical.
And by the way, calling flag is not only allowed at chess clubs,
tournaments, and informal play, it is ENCOURAGED. Flag down, you
lose. Even if its because you fell asleep during the game, or have a
physical disability that makes it harder for you to move the pieces, or
because you were distracted by what was happening at the game to your
left. You might not even be in the room when your flag falls, it
doesn't matter. Flag down, you lose. People who can't show up at the
start of their game lose, and it isn't fair if it's because their car
broke down, but it is the *rules*. Lag on ICS is the equivalent to car
break downs in real-world chess games.
Be honest with what you mean. You don't mean that players are
unethical, you mean that the rules work in their favour and you want to
change the rules so that they work in YOUR favour.
Lag has never yet won me a game, and it has lost me several, and it's
very annoying. But the last thing I would suggest is that my opponents
are unethical for playing by the rules!
- Paul Colley
University: col...@qucis.queensu.ca
Home: paco...@ember.uucp watmath!ember!pacolley +1 613 545 3807
"Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is,
of course, living in a state of sin." - John von Neumann
Eric S. Perlman
Fun for you, perhaps. Everyone has their own definition of fu I
personally play with an ascii board while at work (our disk-space
situation does not allow me to use xics or something similar) and giics
at home, but with a 2400 baud line. That is why I don't play <5 0 in
general.
However, the situation for me is that very often I will go an hour or
two without significant lag (1-5 seconds, but that does not bother me),
and then it will pop up in one or two 30s-5 minute bunches, and then
disappear again, not to be seen for awhile. Only a small fraction of
the time can I actually predict it in that fashion.
>>>>2. If you believe lag-flagging is unethical and/or cheating, what
>>>>action should be taken against lag-flaggers?
>>>
>>>Maybe my answer in #1 invalidates this answer, but I do have solutions
>>>to the problem.
>>>a) play only unrated games. Then you won't feel the same sense of loss
>>>when lag strikes.
>>>b) offer an unlimited time control -- has this been implemented?
>>>I guess something like 1440 0 would approximate it. Or 1440 86400.
>>
>>This is not a solution. ESPECIALLY since 90%+ of the time lag is
>>completely unpredictable.
>
>The moment when lag occurs may be unpredictable, but the fact that you will
>have lag is definitely not. You don't know which games you will lose against
>a higher rated opponent, but you can be quite sure that you will lose
>some of them.
Not true.
>>>c) if you suffer lag, immediately resign. That way, you won't feel
>>>angry at your opponent should he or she flag you -- and it is no more
>>>artificial than a draw or a courtesy-abort. Don't you think aborting a
>>>game in an unbalanced position is just as much a tragedy as a loss on
>>>time in that situation? All that work and anticipation, then ...
>>><null>.
>>
>>Why? It gives your opponent the feeling of glee, that s/he "won the
>>game", which is completely unethical. A courtesyabort destroys what may
>>be a very very interesting game, but it's fair to both sides, since the
>>game isn't won till the fat lady sings...
>
>I start to see your problem. You can't stand the pain that it causes when
>somebody (unjustly) feels superior. I can understand that. But can't
>see what you want to do about it. I have decisively won games and my
>opponents have claimed that they would have won, if ...
That's sour grapes, juffi, and it's in no way similar. Let me remind
you that my most recent lag-flagging incident happened when I was a full
rook up and that the move before the lag, I had over 1:45 left on my
clock in a 2 12 game.
Completely nullifies your argument, wouldn't you say?
>>> That's what's unfortunate about lag, not how the game is
>>>recorded. If you resign when you suffer lag, then you can direct your
>>>frustration in the appropriate direction -- a less-than-perfect
>>>(though still quite wonderful) system for playing chess over the net.
>>
>>I disagree. If you resign when suffering lag, then in lots of cases,
>>your rating will be largely a function of your connection's quality,
>>which most of us here have absolutely zero control of. In other words,
>>chess will have ceased to become what most of us love most about it -- a
>>pure contest between the will, calculating ability, and intuition of the
>>two players.
>Where do you play chess?
I'm not sure where you're going with this comment, but I play from
Boulder, Colorado, USA. I have played in tourneys in Colorado for the
last 5 years. Before that, I lived in Los Angeles, and played in LA and
a few Northern California tourneys for those 4 years. And before that,
I played in Arizona tourneys (I grew up in Arizona) for 6 years. I have
also played in chess clubs and tournaments, while travelling, in
Washington, DC, Columbus, Ohio, and Portland, Maine.
Tim Mann
> There *is* a method for ensuring
> that the client software doesn't lie
> ...
> (1) Make only executables available, compiled for
> the the various machines
As the author of xboard, I do not have the resources to compile and supply
executables for all the machines people use it on. Also, xboard is
copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation (not by me), and its licensing
terms (the "copyleft") expressly forbid distributing it in executable-only
form. The source must always be provided.
--Tim
Paul Colley
>What separates "not-nice" from unethical, in your book, Paul?
Ho-ho! In one sentence, we've managed to lump rapists, murderers, and
those who don't use deoderants together as "unethical".
A neighbour who doesn't weed his lawn is "not-nice". Telemarketers who
call during dinner hour are "not-nice". People who chit-chat for ten
minutes on pay phones when I want to make a call are "not-nice".
My code of ethics forbids lieing, cheating, stealing, hurting the
innocent, ignoring the hungry. It does not require that everybody in
the world view me as "nice". Neither does it condemn those who
legitimately do things that are to their advantage. The world does not
need to be "fair" to be "ethical".
I appreciate those in this world who are nice to me, who go out of
their way and spend of their time to make my day go better. There are
lots who don't, and they are "not-nice" to me, but I don't question
their ethics. Being somebody who looks for the good, I presume they
are "nice" to others, at other times. And so what if they aren't.
I give of my time and money to some charities that help people, real
people, with real problems. That is "nice". I say no to some other
charities that are doing as good a job in other areas... that's
"not-nice", but I sleep quite well at night, thank you.
--------
By calling "lag-flaging" unethical, something explicitly allowed for in
the rules of the game you choose to play, you diminish the importance
and meaning of "ethics" in this world.
Exploitation of a good network connection is "unethical?" Sheesh!
Next you'll want to ban tall basketball players. My 5'6" sister quite
enjoys basketball, and I with my often-lagged connection enjoy ICS.
I would play more often if there were less lag, but it wouldn't change
the ethics of my opponents.
- Paul Colley (NOT the Paul of the quoted message)
Gene Stark
>*EXACTLY* the same fashion as logging off in a lost position (commonly
>called abuse). I suggest the following code of conduct which applies
>both to the lagee (e.g. the person actually suffering from lag) and
>his/her opponent:
When you accept a match with an opponent, you agree to play the game to
completion by the rules of the game. On ICS, lag is part of the game,
as is "lag-flagging".
Though it sometimes makes me angry when my last two minutes are suddenly
sucked up by lag, I like and accept the fact that I can play a game to
completion in a known amount of time without having to negotiate with my
opponent in mid-stream about the rules.
If you don't like the game, then don't play...
- Gene Stark
--
Richard Robinson
I think that this is an issue similar to a gust of wind blowing a golf
ball off course. It happens and we have no control. We do have the
option of restoring the game and continuing it. I would prefer to play
a game where there was no lag involved. Thus, I would prefer to restore
the game and continue.
But, we all play with time constraints. It is part of the game.
I will cuss and scream when I experience lag but I will not blame my
opponent for flagging me.
richardr
--
- - -
Q. According to a March 18, 1992, New York Times article sent to you
by alert reader Melanie Allen, what were Russian anarchists chanting at
a Moscow street demonstration?
A. They were chanting: ``Eat Gaseous Worms.'' The Times states:
``Nobody figured out what this was supposed to mean, but the slogan
stirred considerable emotion.''
Q. ``Gaseous Worms'' would be a good name for a rock band.
Michel van der List
In article <2r080s$r...@lace.Colorado.EDU>, per...@qso.Colorado.EDU
(Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>
>[...]
>
> I, for one, will not wait till ICS has an official stance. People who
> lag-flag should be villified. They're cheating. Pure and simple.
>
>[...]
>
I usually stay out of these discussions, but this is getting
crazy. Vilified!? Where does it say that I am cheating when I
call your flag when ICS say it has fallen? Did I sign something
saying I would ask you first? Are there rules governing this?
Is it cheating when I'm playing you with 5 0 control and it is
obvious I can get my moves to the server faster then you can?
(I know you are talking about the occasional 1m delay, but the
principle is the same, no?). Is it cheating when I use autoflag
on xboard? On who's authority do you decide these issues?
I think we all should step back for a second.
You said that 80% of the people logged on when responding to your
shouts agreed that it was cheating. If that's the case, why not
play them instead of the <= 20% of the people who fell they can
flag you in this matter?
Logging in this afternoon I noticed that about 100 people were
logged on. Seems to me it should not be too hard to find somebody
to play with that will not call your flag when you have obvious
lag.
Two illustrating stories:
The other day I was playing ParkPlace at 7 0. Three times I had
to disconnect because of bad lag (I know when I do a 'who' and
don't get response within 10s, I might as well step back and try
again). The third time I offered to resign (my clock might have
expired anyway) but ParkPlace graciously offered to abort (his
position was IMHO better, although unclear).
A little longer ago I was playing another player (name remains
unknown) at 7 0. I use xboard (lucky me), with autoflag sometimes
set (if I don't forget). So after a somewhat tense struggle (I
had 1'19" left, s/he 32s -- I love automail) I played a good
move (again IMHO). Subsequently his/er flag fell before I even
realized it had happened. 2 seconds later I get a colorfull
expletive send to me saying that I am a lag-flagger... This is
after s/he had taken as much as 41s for a move and this was the
FIRST TIME I HEARD LAG EVEN MENTIONED! I think the 2s was telling
anyway.
Well, of those two people, I will happily try to play ParkPlace
again and the other can look for somebody other than me to play.
The point of all this rambling was that you can pick and chose
the people you play, so why don't you? There always will be
people you don't like, but why not just ignore them?
Michel
BTW. all this complaining about lag makes a great case for
Richard Nash' initiative with the 'Free' ICS server at
chess.pitt.edu.
Roger Uzun
People would abuse it either way, some ICS players, so
concerned over their ICS "rating", whatever that means in
real terms, will use lag as an excuse to get out of
uncomfortable games.
Do what I do, it lag looks to be a problem, then tell your
opponent early on, before you are in trouble, if lag
crops up after you are in trouble, try and act like a mature
adult and just resign the game. You knew that lag could
play a part in shorter blitz games before you challenged
or accepted. Just live with it, and be honest about it.
And don't complain if you get flagged, after you played
yourself into a corner.
I agree if you are winning, and you have complained about
lag, your opponent should either abort the game, or
resign it to you, I know I do, it is just common courtesy.
And if you play someone who refuses to do so, just resign
that game, and refuse any challenges from that player in
the future, letting him or her know why.
-Roger
--------------------------------------------------------------
bix: ruzun
NET: uz...@crash.cts.com
Ted Alper
>In article <alper.7...@Csli.Stanford.EDU> al...@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Ted Alper) writes:
>>[in a list of suggestions of what to do about lag]
>>c) if you suffer lag, immediately resign. That way, you won't feel
>>angry at your opponent should he or she flag you -- and it is no more
>>artificial than a draw or a courtesy-abort. Don't you think aborting a
>>game in an unbalanced position is just as much a tragedy as a loss on
>>time in that situation? All that work and anticipation, then ...
>><null>.
>Why? It gives your opponent the feeling of glee, that s/he "won the
>game", which is completely unethical. A courtesyabort destroys what may
>be a very very interesting game, but it's fair to both sides, since the
>game isn't won till the fat lady sings...
You have a very different notion of what the word "ethical" means than I do.
You consider someone else's glee, perhaps undeserved, to be *unethical*?
Have you considered that being bothered by the glee of others is ethically
questionable?
My ethics usually require me to shoulder the burden of uncertain
cases myself. If I think my opponent has had lag, I give him/her extra
time; If I have had lag, I may tell my opponent, but I accept
whatever he/she chooses to do about it. If my opponent values a win
more than playing out the game, so be it. I won't go so far as to
call your position unethical, but it doesn't seem ethically superior.
If ICS does get a lag-sensitive clock (and I have no objection to it) I
can envision a time when I might choose to resign rather than endure
my opponent's lag. I didn't ask for it when I started the game, and
blitz chess with empty stretches of several minutes between moves
might be somewhat unsatisfying. What's "fair" to me then? What's "ethical"?
Could I request a courtesy-abort? Would my opponent be morally
obliged to accept?
> If you resign when suffering lag, then in lots of cases,
>your rating will be largely a function of your connection's quality,
>which most of us here have absolutely zero control of. In other words,
>chess will have ceased to become what most of us love most about it -- a
>pure contest between the will, calculating ability, and intuition of the
>two players.
Well, this is a different point -- I'm not sure I agree with either
your description of chess or whether that's what I love about it, but
that's another story. Still, isn't there a distinction between the
chess game and the recorded score? If you're in a winning position,
then lose on a lag-tainted flag, so what? You won the CHESS game, no?
You just didn't get the added pleasure of seeing your name listed
twice in that line when you type "hist". If you are so enraged by the
loss of that pleasure -- or from the contemplation of someone less
deserving having that pleasure -- it is not because chess has ceased
to be a pure contest of will, etc. It is because the record on ICS doesn't
always accurately reflect that contest and because you place value on the
record in addition to the value of the game. Not that you shouldn't do that,
and not that ICS shouldn't strive to have as accurate a record as possible,
but at least be precise about what upsets you.
Ted Alper
Steve Mayer
: No. People should not have to resign because of lag. I'll go further.
: It is absolutely unethical to force someone to resign because of lag.
: If you don't agree to play the game out, and instead offer the abort,
: they should have no choice but to agree.
Eric,
You _do_ mean in cases where the position is more or less even, I hope.
Otherwise, one is simply introducing another possibility of abuse, e.g.,
JRandom wishes to abort because he's a pawn down. Lag really is a
secondary issue in such a case.
-Steve
Mike Thomas
I've made a few silly, poorly considered remarks on the net, but now I just
don't feel as embarassed as I used too. Thanks guys.
There is one thought that all of the discussion on netlag is impelling me towards:
Those without lag don't give a ratsass about those who are experiencing the
problem. Ahh, an American tradition, the have's and the have nots and if you've
got it, screw the ones that don't. Even better, deny that a problem even exists.
Someone whining about not being able to play blitz during the day, why that's his
fault, he should restrict himself to playing 20 30! Real men play 0 1, that's
proof of your innate skill at chess! I've got good access to the server,
what's the beef?
Perhaps someone could briefly summarize some of the discussion on this topic?
I'll start:
1. There is no problem, just praise (insert your foible here) that we even have
a server.
2. There is a problem, but those of us who aren't experiencing it just don't
care and don't want to be bothered with any further discussion of it on
the net.
3. There is a problem, but there's no possible solution so please quit cluttering
the net with these tiresome postings.
4. There is a problem.....
Regards,
--
--Mike Thomas tho...@agcs.com
Steve Mayer
: writes:
: > No, in club blitz chess, you often play touch move. Every format of
: >of the game.
: >
: >-Steve
: How is "touch-move" not fair to each side?
: Your argument is pure obfuscation.
Oh, thank you! I find that SO complimentary!
My argument is that every form of chess has rules that can "destroy"
the "proper" result of a game. Lag is either "not fair" equally (in which
case why worry about iyt so much?) or it affects a minority who should
take steps to improve their connection, e.g., buy a better modem or find
a better service provider. May I suggest a 14400 and Netcom? ;-)
-Steve
Ed Hanway
: In article <Cpp0...@raster.kodak.com>,
: Ed Hanway <j...@raster.kodak.com> wrote:
: >
: >How about when you're flagged on move 8? Happened to me twice yesterday,
: >by two different people. My "solution" is to keep my own list of people that
: Twice? See, that's something that's getting hard to understand.
: If that happens to me once I either disconnect or play a slower game.
: Lag is not only bothering you, it's also a pain in the ass for your opponent.
I realize that, and wouldn't start a game if I knew that my connection would
break down in 8 moves. What I usually experience isn't any kind of consistent
several-second-per-move lag, but connections that lock up completely for minutes
at a time. It seems to happen at random times, without warning.
--
Ed Hanway --- j...@raster.kodak.com
EKC, KIG, ESPC, DSC, DPSC, ISG, M.O.U.S.E.
Any opinions are mine, not Kodak's.
John R Coffey
>I, for one, will not wait till ICS has an official stance. People who
>lag-flag should be villified. They're cheating. Pure and simple.
I'm sorry, but I don't get this reasoning at all.
A. Where is it in the rules?
B. Assume it is cheating, but why is it a serious issue?
Your rating goes up and someone else's rating goes
down. So What?
T. M. Cuffel
You need a little more than a clock that runs forward to tell time...
I think a clock that registers five minutes after five minutes have elapsed
is a good thing. And in all but a few cases, this clock will insure a
reasonable facsimile of equal time.
I think a clock that is inherently inaccurate is a bad thing. In every case,
it will add random bits and pieces to your time in a gross charactiture
of equal time.
>
>>Another thing that is not realistic is room constantly filled with 50-
>>150 chessplayers of all abilities, all with their own boards and
>>clocks. The room isn't crowded and doesn't stink. You can talk, smoke,
>>and drink whenever you want, and never disturb a game. I think
>>emulating a chess club "realism" has limited milage, because we are
>>doing things a "real" chess club couldn't dream of.
>
>Fine. You can take my point to an extreme if it gives you pleasure. But
>please note that my point was the following: it is desirable to make ICS
>more realistic than less realistic. Also note that we really do not need
>to be at a chess club or a tournament. Our chess clocks (THE REAL
>PHYSICAL ONES) can be used anywhere we want, and they (albeit malfunciton)
>always ensure that each player has access to his/her full time.
Posting to the net always gives me pleasure.
You say more realism is better than less realism. How do you propose to
implement the guy in the club who has a tantrum if you breath too loud?
Or the one who insists on using a set with green and red pieces based on
Great Mongol Warriors? Chess without disturbances in unrealistic. Do
you want to put them back in?
Realism at one time was an admirable goal. But with computers screening
illegal moves, clocks that punch themselves after every move, and ratings
that adjust in ,iliseconds, reality has in many ways been exceeded. ICS
is ICS, and its maintainence and improvement will take more than clinging
to some tired old chess club analogy.
>>One of those
>>things is high volume chess on demand. The integrity of each
>>individual game does not have to be as important, because I can play
>>20 games a day, every day. Try that at your local chess club.
>
>What you're saying is that you really don't care if the clocks don't
>really work that well, or that is some cases they may be unfair. Ok,
>that's you. But apparently other people disagree. It's my opinion that
>good clocks are important to chess. PERIOD.
A good clock takes five minutes to say five minutes have elapsed.
At a chess club, I might get one rated game a week. My tolerance for
"unfairness" there is very low. Lucky for me the matter of timing a
game is simpler.
On ICS, I can play as many games as I want. My tolerance is somewhat
higher. I am willing to accept the occasional "unfair" game if it
means my ICS clock will act the same way as the one I would use at a
club. I can't insure strict realism, but neither can you.
>>Why use clock in the first place? So I will have an idea of how long
>>my game will last, and what pace it would be played at. Not counting
>>lag will make this impossible to predict. And like you say, clocks are
>>to insure equal time. Not random time. Also, you forget that there
>>is lag on EVERY move. If each of my moves lagged by one second, I
>>could still play 5 0 about the same as if I had no lag, but now I
>>get ~40 extra seconds a game in my piggy bank, a big advantage. Finally,
>>I think you are overestimating the effect lag has on a game. Most
>>games are largly unaffected by lag, and randomizing the clocks for the
>>few that are is overkill. The cure is worse than the disease.
>
>If these enhancements are made, there is nothing to stop there then being
>two types of game: (i) regular games where lag time counts against you,
>and (ii) lag adjusted games. Games of type (i) GUARANTEE THAT THE GAME
>WILL END WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME. Games of type (ii) GUARANTEE THAT EACH
>PLAYER HAS EQUAL TIME. They are both valuable! Let's have both!!
Or we could have a clock won't allow a flag until the tenth move. Maybe
one that won't allow a time forfiet until the second flag. Then there
could be one that adds the natural log of (3000 - your rating) to the
increment. An alarm and an hourly chime would be nice too. Maybe
something that would let you play checkers or parcheesi if you got
sick of chess. Then again...
You still haven't told me what you would do about a consistantly slow
link stealing large chunks of time over the course of the game...
T. M. Cuffel
>
>I, for one, will not wait till ICS has an official stance. People who
>lag-flag should be villified. They're cheating. Pure and simple.
That is your opinion. I prefer rational discussion to unilateral
decisions.
>>Whoa! You want a magical "My clock doesn't matter any more" button?
>>My opponent gets a 15 second whiff of lag on move six, proceeds to
>>completely mismanage his clock, and I can't flag? Sure, it would
>>nice if we could get rid of lag-flagging, but not if it means punishing
>>people without lag.
>
>Most of the lags which cause people to get lag-flagged -- at least 95%
>-- are of the >1 minute variety. That's not what I'm talking about, and
>you know it.
So change the 15 to a 60. Make it two minutes if that will make you
happy. I am a nice person, and would be delighted to use the
moretime command. You still want your magic little button regardless
of how badly you mismanage your time.
>Fair enough. Then you should abort the game in some fashion.
>
>>Here is a combination of proposals I have heard. You are lagging. You
>>suggest to me that we play a clockless game. If I say yes, we go ahead,
>>no flagging. If I say no, you either accept the outcome of the game
>>regardless of your lag, or you resign immediately. Since ratings aren't
>>a big thing, a resign is as good as an abort. Better even, since you
>>don't have to try to make me agree to it.
>
>No. People should not have to resign because of lag. I'll go further.
>It is absolutely unethical to force someone to resign because of lag.
>If you don't agree to play the game out, and instead offer the abort,
>they should have no choice but to agree.
If your rating is truly unimportant, I can't see what difference it makes
how you end a game. You don't need my permission to resign, and it takes
the profit out of faking lag. And no one is forcing you to resign.
James Alan Riechel
This would, admittedly, be most likely the job of several people.
Well, then I guess xboard could be written "onto" an intermediate level
"shell" that does the secure timestaming stuff. Either that or someone else
or a group of people could write a new timestamp/graphic client for Xterms
that wouldn't be under the same copyright restrictions as your software.
That's two solutions.
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
James
James Alan Riechel
> jrie...@cc.gatech.edu (James Riechel) writes:
>
>>If these enhancements are made, there is nothing to stop there then being
>>two types of game: (i) regular games where lag time counts against you,
>>and (ii) lag adjusted games. Games of type (i) GUARANTEE THAT THE GAME
>>WILL END WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME. Games of type (ii) GUARANTEE THAT EACH
>>PLAYER HAS EQUAL TIME. They are both valuable! Let's have both!!
>Or we could have a clock won't allow a flag until the tenth move. Maybe
>one that won't allow a time forfiet until the second flag. Then there
>could be one that adds the natural log of (3000 - your rating) to the
>increment. An alarm and an hourly chime would be nice too. Maybe
>something that would let you play checkers or parcheesi if you got
>sick of chess. Then again...
Hmm. So what you're saying is that the feature that me and other people have
proposed (i.e. having lag-adjusted games) is just completely RIDICULOUS and
ARBITRARY? Or at least as ridiculous and arbitrary as a clock that adds the
natural of (3000 - rating) to your clock?
So I guess you think that the fact that a chess clock gives each player access
to his/her full time is also RIDICULOUS and ARBITRARY. If this is indeed your
stance, I think you won't find many people sharing your opinion.
Question: What makes the current clock on ICS less RIDICULOUS and ARBITRAY?
Maybe you just don't want to change the status quo?
>You still haven't told me what you would do about a consistantly slow
>link stealing large chunks of time over the course of the game...
>
What is there to tell you? In games of type ii (lag-adjusted) these large
chunks of time would not end up counting against the player-to-move's clock.
This "protocal" effectively adds all lag time experienced by EITHER player
to BOTH player's clocks. For example, in a 5 0 game this ensures: (a) that
each player has at least a full five minutes to think/enter-moves, AND (b)
that each player has equal wall clock time (i.e. lag time + thinking/entering-
move time).
In the case where enormous lag slows down your game just way too much, I
have already sugguested that two new commands could be provided: "lagabort"
and "lagadjourn." Use your imagination.
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
James Alan Riechel
Sorry, didn't notice my simple error until after I already posted. The
"protocal" just wouldn't count lag time as "belonging" to either player's
clock. Conditions (a) and (b) below are still satisfied:
>each player has their full five minutes to think/enter-moves, AND (b)
T. M. Cuffel
In article <jriechel....@cc.gatech.edu> you write:
>cuf...@cs.colorado.edu (T. M. Cuffel) writes:
>
>> jrie...@cc.gatech.edu (James Riechel) writes:
>>
>>>If these enhancements are made, there is nothing to stop there then being
>>>two types of game: (i) regular games where lag time counts against you,
>>>and (ii) lag adjusted games. Games of type (i) GUARANTEE THAT THE GAME
>>>WILL END WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME. Games of type (ii) GUARANTEE THAT EACH
>>>PLAYER HAS EQUAL TIME. They are both valuable! Let's have both!!
>
>>Or we could have a clock won't allow a flag until the tenth move. Maybe
>>one that won't allow a time forfiet until the second flag. Then there
>>could be one that adds the natural log of (3000 - your rating) to the
>>increment. An alarm and an hourly chime would be nice too. Maybe
>>something that would let you play checkers or parcheesi if you got
>>sick of chess. Then again...
>
>Hmm. So what you're saying is that the feature that me and other people have
>proposed (i.e. having lag-adjusted games) is just completely RIDICULOUS and
>ARBITRARY? Or at least as ridiculous and arbitrary as a clock that adds the
>natural of (3000 - rating) to your clock?
You lag adjusting clock is neither rediculous nor arbitrary. On the surface,
it sounds like a good idea, kinda like having the government print enough
money to pay off the national debt. Further analysis points out major
flaws in both ideas, so instead of rediculous or arbitrary, I think the
word I would use is niave.
Back to the point, why stop at two clocks? Why not have ten? Since
everyone thinks it is a trivial manner to reprogram ICS and every known
client, then compile it on every known machine, clocks for every known
fancy should not be a problem. Then we could set up a different rating
for each clock...
I would much rather worry about chess than about which clock I am using.
>So I guess you think that the fact that a chess clock gives each player access
>to his/her full time is also RIDICULOUS and ARBITRARY. If this is indeed your
>stance, I think you won't find many people sharing your opinion.
>Question: What makes the current clock on ICS less RIDICULOUS and ARBITRAY?
>Maybe you just don't want to change the status quo?
The status quo will insure equal time most of the time and correct time
all of the time.
A lag subtracting clock will insure a strange varity of equal time all
of the time, and correct time none of the time.
>>You still haven't told me what you would do about a consistantly slow
>>link stealing large chunks of time over the course of the game...
>>
>
>What is there to tell you? In games of type ii (lag-adjusted) these large
>chunks of time would not end up counting against the player-to-move's clock.
>This "protocal" effectively adds all lag time experienced by EITHER player
>to BOTH player's clocks. For example, in a 5 0 game this ensures: (a) that
>each player has at least a full five minutes to think/enter-moves, AND (b)
>that each player has equal wall clock time (i.e. lag time + thinking/entering-
>move time).
Too bad vi won't let me draw pictures...
Player A is logged in directly to ICS. Player B is playing from Finland.
Every move Player B makes is lagged by one second, which is too small to
affect his playing strength. They are playing 5 0. Player A's game will
end five minutes from now. Player B's in five minutes and forty seconds.
So much for equal time.
>In the case where enormous lag slows down your game just way too much, I
>have already sugguested that two new commands could be provided: "lagabort"
>and "lagadjourn." Use your imagination.
Imagination engaged.
Player A and Player B agree to a 5 0 game. Fifteen minutes into the game,
Player A wins a rook. Three moves later, Player A lags for twenty
seconds. Player B lagaborts. Player A wonders why she never wins a
game, but takes comfort in the fact that ICS enforces ethical, equal
time games.
--QAA17795.768953412/nag.cs.Colorado.EDU--
James Alan Riechel
>You lag adjusting clock is neither rediculous nor arbitrary. On the surface,
>it sounds like a good idea, kinda like having the government print enough
>money to pay off the national debt. Further analysis points out major
>flaws in both ideas, so instead of rediculous or arbitrary, I think the
>word I would use is niave.
When you say "both ideas" I imagine that you're referring to both types of
clocks --- the current one and the proposed lag-adjusted one. Yes, they both
have flaws. The current clock may not give a player full access to his/her
time. This is a flaw. The proposed lag-adjusted clock will result in games
that potentially can last *much* longer than you'd "expect." This is a flaw,
too. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and each is the embodiment of an
important idea.
(I really don't get your analogy with the government printing more money to
pay off the nation debt. People now-a-days use such loose analogies that
it's disgusting. They can hardly be called analogies at all! I don't want to
argue politics. Maybe you should cross post your messages to
gov.politics.activist.)
>Back to the point, why stop at two clocks? Why not have ten? Since
We've heard sound arguments for having two clocks, and these arguments are
based on features of real chess clocks. The current ICS clock GUARANTEES
THAT A GAME WILL END WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME. The proposed lag-adjusted clock
GUARANTEES THAT EACH PLAYER HAS EQUAL THINKING TIME. For the life of me I
cannot think of any other important features of chess clocks that might point
to the need for more than two clocks. Therefore, it stops at two! Instead
of being worried that new "important features" of clocks might be "discovered"
every other day, why don't you think about it yourself. Do you see the need
for a third clock? Probably not, so I don't see what you're so worried about.
>everyone thinks it is a trivial manner to reprogram ICS and every known
>client, then compile it on every known machine, clocks for every known
>fancy should not be a problem. Then we could set up a different rating
>for each clock...
Ah. The over-worked, under-paid, self-sacrificing, selfless, ...
Let's be clear on a few points:
(a) I have argued that the introduction of a lag-adjusted clock is a good
idea in theory. The strength of this argument DOES NOT REPLY ONE IOTA ON
WHETHER IT IS PRACTICAL OR FEASIBLE TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT. These are two
different questions, and you should treat them as such.
(b) My first computer has a TRS-80 Model III. At age 12 I was programming
machine code in hexadecimal with a memory editor. I REALIZE THAT THE
MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED MAY BE VERY DIFFICULT/TIME-CONSUMING
TO COMPLETE. I'm *really* not demanding a new lag-adjusted clock by next
week. In fact, a modification this large could be delayed until the
programmers decide that they want to make other major changes as well. The
time for this may not come for a while. I understand this.
(c) I appreciate the work that has gone into building ICS. But I also
realize that programmers have their own reasons for writing software.
>I would much rather worry about chess than about which clock I am using.
Why are you so worried all the time? I realize that I've proposed a change
to ICS, and that change causes anxiety.
>>So I guess you think that the fact that a chess clock gives each player access
>>to his/her full time is also RIDICULOUS and ARBITRARY. If this is indeed your
>>stance, I think you won't find many people sharing your opinion.
>>Question: What makes the current clock on ICS less RIDICULOUS and ARBITRAY?
>>Maybe you just don't want to change the status quo?
>The status quo will insure equal time most of the time and correct time
>all of the time.
Agreed. But it can only guarantee the latter. And depending on who you ask
you will get different interrpretations of "most of the time."
>A lag subtracting clock will insure a strange varity of equal time all
>of the time, and correct time none of the time.
See above for the advantages and disadvantages of each type of clock.
>>>You still haven't told me what you would do about a consistantly slow
>>>link stealing large chunks of time over the course of the game...
>>>
>>
>>What is there to tell you? In games of type ii (lag-adjusted) these large
>>chunks of time would not end up counting against the player-to-move's clock.
>>This "protocal" effectively adds all lag time experienced by EITHER player
>>to BOTH player's clocks. For example, in a 5 0 game this ensures: (a) that
>>each player has at least a full five minutes to think/enter-moves, AND (b)
>>that each player has equal wall clock time (i.e. lag time + thinking/entering-
>>move time).
>Too bad vi won't let me draw pictures...
>Player A is logged in directly to ICS. Player B is playing from Finland.
>Every move Player B makes is lagged by one second, which is too small to
>affect his playing strength. They are playing 5 0. Player A's game will
>end five minutes from now. Player B's in five minutes and forty seconds.
>So much for equal time.
Huh? You're looking at it the wrong way. Are you aware that you can think
on your opponent's time? Call the time a player has when he is looking
at a position with himself to move as "ME TO MOVE TIME." Call the time a
player has when he is looking at a position with his opponent to move as
"OPPONENT TO MOVE TIME." You will notice, then, that in your above argument
that each player has EXACTLY the SAME amount of ME TO MOVE TIME and
OPPONENT TO MOVE TIME. If you're confused at first, just be patient with
yourself and you'll understand eventually.
>>In the case where enormous lag slows down your game just way too much, I
>>have already sugguested that two new commands could be provided: "lagabort"
>>and "lagadjourn." Use your imagination.
>Imagination engaged.
>Player A and Player B agree to a 5 0 game. Fifteen minutes into the game,
>Player A wins a rook. Three moves later, Player A lags for twenty
>seconds. Player B lagaborts. Player A wonders why she never wins a
>game, but takes comfort in the fact that ICS enforces ethical, equal
>time games.
Hey! Ok. So you've found an unfair case of the use of the suggested
"lagabort" command. So maybe only "lagadjourn" makes sense. But these
details can be worked out later. There's nothing insurmountable here. Just
a mole hill.
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
T. M. Cuffel
>
>>You lag adjusting clock is neither rediculous nor arbitrary. On the surface,
>>it sounds like a good idea, kinda like having the government print enough
>>money to pay off the national debt. Further analysis points out major
>>flaws in both ideas, so instead of rediculous or arbitrary, I think the
>>word I would use is niave.
>
>When you say "both ideas" I imagine that you're referring to both types of
>clocks --- the current one and the proposed lag-adjusted one.
I think it is clear that the ideas I was referring to were printing money
to combat debt and a so called lag-free clock.
>Yes, they both
>have flaws. The current clock may not give a player full access to his/her
>time. This is a flaw. The proposed lag-adjusted clock will result in games
>that potentially can last *much* longer than you'd "expect." This is a flaw,
>too. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and each is the embodiment of an
>important idea.
A game lasting too long won't just make me miss the first five minutes of
MacGyver. I expect a certain pace, and adjust my strategy accordingly.
The other day I was playing blitz, and I sac'd a bishop for two kingside
pawns. I was fairly confident that either I would get a mate out of it, or
my opponent would use up enough time finding an accurate defense to make it
impossible to exploit the material advantage in the endgame. The same sort
of move probably would have lost at longer time controls.
Without a normal clock, it would be impossible to adjust your strategy to
the time controls, because you don't know what they are. I never know
when a five minute bout of lag will allow my opponent to escape my
complications. Sure, I can think during this time too, but my whole
idea was to burn my opponents time in a position where my moves are easier
to find.
>(I really don't get your analogy with the government printing more money to
>pay off the nation debt.
Like your clock idea, a person might niavely think it a good solution to a
problem. Nothing deeper than that.
>People now-a-days use such loose analogies that
>it's disgusting. They can hardly be called analogies at all! I don't want to
>argue politics. Maybe you should cross post your messages to
>gov.politics.activist.)
Impoper use of anologies is probably brought about by improper understaning
of them.
>>Back to the point, why stop at two clocks? Why not have ten? Since
>
>We've heard sound arguments for having two clocks, and these arguments are
>based on features of real chess clocks.
All I have heard is the initial suggestion of a lag-free clock, and your
vague paradigm of equal time. The latter is in fact an argument, but I
remain to be convinced of its soundness.
The current ICS clock GUARANTEES
>THAT A GAME WILL END WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME. The proposed lag-adjusted clock
>GUARANTEES THAT EACH PLAYER HAS EQUAL THINKING TIME.
In a twisted sort of way. I would prefer to know in advance whether I have
five seconds or five minutes to think.
For the life of me I
>cannot think of any other important features of chess clocks that might point
>to the need for more than two clocks. Therefore, it stops at two! Instead
>of being worried that new "important features" of clocks might be "discovered"
>every other day, why don't you think about it yourself. Do you see the need
>for a third clock? Probably not, so I don't see what you're so worried about.
Just in case your didn't read the post your are responding to, I envisioned
two clock features that might, in some way, offset lag. Disallowing flagging
in the first X moves, and requiring two flags for a time forfiet. I was
not serious about the other ideas, but I thought that was obvious enough
not to footnote. The legitimate ideas were off the top of my head, and
I haven't given them enough thought to endorse them. I am sure I could
come up with a few more if you really wanted me to.
>>everyone thinks it is a trivial manner to reprogram ICS and every known
>>client, then compile it on every known machine, clocks for every known
>>fancy should not be a problem. Then we could set up a different rating
>>for each clock...
>
>Ah. The over-worked, under-paid, self-sacrificing, selfless, ...
I am not so glib about what other people have provided me for free...
>
>Let's be clear on a few points:
>
>(a) I have argued that the introduction of a lag-adjusted clock is a good
>idea in theory. The strength of this argument DOES NOT REPLY ONE IOTA ON
>WHETHER IT IS PRACTICAL OR FEASIBLE TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT. These are two
>different questions, and you should treat them as such.
We were talking about what to do about lag-flagging, a REAL, NON-THEORETICAL
problem. If were are going to ignore practical concerns, well, then this
problem is utterly trivial. Here's my solution:
All the under-worked, over-paid, self-promoting, selfish Darooha has to
is invent a free, limitless energy source and faster than light travel.
He drives us all down to Oklahoma, and we have us a big ol' chess
jamboree.
>(b) My first computer has a TRS-80 Model III. At age 12 I was programming
>machine code in hexadecimal with a memory editor.
Pass. I don't think the net is so big that it has enough room for swapping
self indulgent "I was the bigger computer prodigy" stories.
>I REALIZE THAT THE
>MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED MAY BE VERY DIFFICULT/TIME-CONSUMING
>TO COMPLETE. I'm *really* not demanding a new lag-adjusted clock by next
>week. In fact, a modification this large could be delayed until the
>programmers decide that they want to make other major changes as well. The
>time for this may not come for a while. I understand this.
Or ever. I hope Darooha never has so much free time that he has nothing
better to do but that. On second thought, by then, he would have that
free limitless energy thing out of the way...
>(c) I appreciate the work that has gone into building ICS. But I also
>realize that programmers have their own reasons for writing software.
>
>>I would much rather worry about chess than about which clock I am using.
>
>Why are you so worried all the time? I realize that I've proposed a change
>to ICS, and that change causes anxiety.
Making ICS worse causes me some small degree of anxiety.
>>>So I guess you think that the fact that a chess clock gives each player access
>>>to his/her full time is also RIDICULOUS and ARBITRARY. If this is indeed your
>>>stance, I think you won't find many people sharing your opinion.
>
>>>Question: What makes the current clock on ICS less RIDICULOUS and ARBITRAY?
>>>Maybe you just don't want to change the status quo?
>
>>The status quo will insure equal time most of the time and correct time
>>all of the time.
>
>Agreed. But it can only guarantee the latter. And depending on who you ask
>you will get different interrpretations of "most of the time."
Most people I talk to put it in the high ninties.
>>A lag subtracting clock will insure a strange varity of equal time all
>>of the time, and correct time none of the time.
>
>See above for the advantages and disadvantages of each type of clock.
Why should I, when those last few lines sum it up so well?
>>>In the case where enormous lag slows down your game just way too much, I
>>>have already sugguested that two new commands could be provided: "lagabort"
>>>and "lagadjourn." Use your imagination.
>
>>Imagination engaged.
>
>>Player A and Player B agree to a 5 0 game. Fifteen minutes into the game,
>>Player A wins a rook. Three moves later, Player A lags for twenty
>>seconds. Player B lagaborts. Player A wonders why she never wins a
>>game, but takes comfort in the fact that ICS enforces ethical, equal
>>time games.
>
>Hey! Ok. So you've found an unfair case of the use of the suggested
>"lagabort" command. So maybe only "lagadjourn" makes sense. But these
>details can be worked out later. There's nothing insurmountable here. Just
>a mole hill.
The argument against lagadjourn is analogous. You are in time trouble in
a tricky position, you hit lagadjourn, and let your computer think about it
overnight.
Why do you think abort and adjourn weren't unilateral commands to begin with?
James Alan Riechel
>jrie...@cc.gatech.edu (James Riechel) writes:
>
>>(a) I have argued that the introduction of a lag-adjusted clock is a good
>>idea in theory. The strength of this argument DOES NOT REPLY ONE IOTA ON
>>WHETHER IT IS PRACTICAL OR FEASIBLE TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT. These are two
>>different questions, and you should treat them as such.
>We were talking about what to do about lag-flagging, a REAL, NON-THEORETICAL
>problem. If were are going to ignore practical concerns, well, then this
>problem is utterly trivial. Here's my solution:
I am not talking exclusively about the problem of lag-flagging. In fact, I've
never directly or indirectly mentioned it. I noticed people suggesting the
use of lag-adjusted clocks and decided this was a good idea IN AND OF ITSELF.
>>(b) My first computer has a TRS-80 Model III. At age 12 I was programming
>>machine code in hexadecimal with a memory editor.
>Pass. I don't think the net is so big that it has enough room for swapping
>self indulgent "I was the bigger computer prodigy" stories.
All I intended to convey was that I was and am pretty darn computer literate.
Therefore, I have a very good idea how much work these changes entail.
>>I REALIZE THAT THE
>>MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED MAY BE VERY DIFFICULT/TIME-CONSUMING
>>TO COMPLETE. I'm *really* not demanding a new lag-adjusted clock by next
>>week. In fact, a modification this large could be delayed until the
>>programmers decide that they want to make other major changes as well. The
>>time for this may not come for a while. I understand this.
>Or ever. I hope Darooha never has so much free time that he has nothing
>better to do but that. On second thought, by then, he would have that
>free limitless energy thing out of the way...
>>(c) I appreciate the work that has gone into building ICS. But I also
>>realize that programmers have their own reasons for writing software.
>>
>>>I would much rather worry about chess than about which clock I am using.
>>
>>Why are you so worried all the time? I realize that I've proposed a change
>>to ICS, and that change causes anxiety.
>Making ICS worse causes me some small degree of anxiety.
Obviously my idea of better == your idea of worse. Let's agree to disagree.
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
Trevor Varley
PE>In article <2quivn$5...@lace.Colorado.EDU> cuf...@cs.colorado.edu (T. M.
PE>Cuffel) writes:
PE>>In article <2qtabq$f...@lace.colorado.edu>,
PE>>Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
PE>>>
PE>>>No, I am *NOT* extremely worried about my rating on the chess server.
PE>>>In fact this has nothing to do with my motivation. Does it surprise
PE>>>you, Dave, that some people attach high importance to the need for a
PE>>>code of ethical behavior? I have run chess tournaments for 6 years,
PE>>>including tourneys as large as 219 players. Such behavior would not be
PE>>>allowed at most chess clubs, even in informal play. It should not be
PE>>>allowed on ICS either.
PE>>
PE>>Is this true? What would you do with someone who "lagged" over the board
PE>>(nacrolepsy, petite mal siezures, attention disorders)? Could you give
PE>>them special treatment? What about dishonest people claiming to
PE>>suffer from these problems? What about dishonest people who actually
PE>>suffer from these problems and using it to their advantage?
PE>KTim, how often does this actually happen at a tournament (e.g. lying
PE>about such a physical or psychological disability)? I mean,
PE>really? I've never, *ever* seen or heard of such a thing in all my 6
PE>years of TDing and 15 years as a tournament player.
PE>About the closest thing I've eer had happen (and believe me, I do *NOT*
PE>consider it in anyway analogous to lagging) to lagging in a USCF rated
PE>tournament was at the Benjamin Gerash memorial tournament four years ago
PE>in Denver. My opponent's car was broken into *during* our game. His
PE>window was shattered and his new CD player ripped right out of the
PE>dashboard. Our game was at a tense, critical juncture; I had a
PE>significant edge. No doubt if I had wished I could have taken advantage
PE>of his state of mind and won easily. Three moves later I chose to offer
PE>him a draw, which he accepted. Why? I would consider it unethical to
PE>take advantage of a player in such unfair circumstances. Indeed, if a
PE>player's car was robbed during a tournament game and s/he requested the
PE>game be adjourned immediately, I would grant it for this exact reason.
PE>Let me turn the question around, Tim. Let's say you're playing an
PE>opponent who has an epileptic-like seizure during time pressure of a
PE>tournament game. While the seizure is going on, his flag falls. Are
PE>you going to call his flag? I wouldn't, and I would seriously question
PE>the ethics of anyone who would.
Thank goodness most of the Chess players I have played against and I
would suggest the MAJORITY of Chess players anywhere, have a sense of
decency akin to Golf.It is for the main part, a Gentlemans' game (ladies
I am using that in a descriptive sense).I am proud to think that most
Chess players are honourable and would only compete on equal terms.I
agree, that changing those equal grounds in the form of psychological
or tactical methods is then an acceptable continuation but I laud
Mr.Perlman in his behavioural example re the car break-in. I would like
to think that I would have acted similarly.
I have, on a number of occassions, pointed out my move to my opponent on
his return to the table when I knew he was under time pressure although
the "call of nature" had dragged him away.They always seem to have
appreciated that little gesture.Perhaps not necessary but a decent
little mannerism.It does tend to get one a reputation of being a
gentleman player.I know the really competetive players among you might
possible say that that is neither here nor there and "may the best man
win" etc.
Since making the level of Master in my case is not likely to depend too
much upon anything other than the miraculous intervention of a greater
being,I can afford these little idiosyncrocies such as sportsmanship and
honour.Perhaps, in my mind, the better alternative if it had to be that
way.
regards,
Trevor
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * Pawnography: Photos of Chess games....
Johannes Fuernkranz
>: Steve Mayer <sma...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >Eric S. Perlman (per...@qso.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>: >: In article <palane.7...@pv742b.vincent.iastate.edu> palane@iastate.
>: > edu: >: (Paul A. Lane) writes:
>: > [stuff on lag-flagging deleted]
>: >: >Also, no blitz game should ever be subject to those kinds of
>: >: >restrictions.
>
>: >: >If you play blitz, lag is a real part of the game.
>: >: >
>: >: >Paul
>: >
>: >: It shouldn't be. It isn't in club chess, and it shouldn't be on ICS.
>: >
>: > No, in club blitz chess, you often play touch move. Every format of
>: >chess has its specific drawbacks; you're not going to find a perfect form
>: >of the game.
>
>: of chess to add another difference.
>: Comparing ICS to club chess is completely off the point.
>: Where's the guy who serves coffee?
>
> Sorry, a) I don't understand what your first sentence means, b) if you
>mean that if your opponent doesn't move in club blitz you can win a
>game...well, yeah. You can also win in postal chess (or any other form
>of chess) if your opponent doesn't move), and c) the point of comparing ICS to
>club blitz (or any other form of competitive chess) is that no form of the
>game is without its drawbacks. For instance, opponents in postal chess may lie
>about when they received a card, they might use a computer, etc.
a) I just wanted to say you can take your opponent's king when he overlooks
a check. You can't do that on ICS Blitz.
And this was just meant to back up your arguments with yet another point.
I totally agree with you.
Each form of chess has it drawbacks and ICS is not different in that respect.
Juffi
Johannes Fuernkranz
>>
>>The moment when lag occurs may be unpredictable, but the fact that you will
>>have lag is definitely not. You don't know which games you will lose against
>>a higher rated opponent, but you can be quite sure that you will lose
>>some of them.
>
>Not true.
>
>>I start to see your problem. You can't stand the pain that it causes when
>>somebody (unjustly) feels superior. I can understand that. But can't
>>see what you want to do about it. I have decisively won games and my
>>opponents have claimed that they would have won, if ...
>
>That's sour grapes, juffi, and it's in no way similar. Let me remind
>you that my most recent lag-flagging incident happened when I was a full
>rook up and that the move before the lag, I had over 1:45 left on my
>clock in a 2 12 game.
>
>Completely nullifies your argument, wouldn't you say?
>
Not really. It's an unfortunate situation when this happens, but I
don't see why it upsets you that much. Its a game and you had a won
position, which you weren't allowed to win. So what?
It very much reminds me of people who are very upset when I call their flag
in regular blitz games when I'm lots of pieces down. The situation is a little
less extreme in that case (they have used up their time by thinking after
all), but I have the feeling that the emotional over-reaction is the same.
>>>which most of us here have absolutely zero control of. In other words,
>>>chess will have ceased to become what most of us love most about it -- a
>>>pure contest between the will, calculating ability, and intuition of the
>>>two players.
>>Where do you play chess?
>
>I'm not sure where you're going with this comment, but I play from
I should have added a ;^) or something.
It was meant to be a rather cynical comment about your enthusiastic view
of chess which IMHO has not much to do with tournament and blitz chess.
Anyways. Chess should be fun, and I am opposed to all regulations and rulings
that make the process of playing a game unnecessarily complicated. I want to
play and everything else is of less importance.
Touch-Move e.g. if you want another example.
Juffi
Johannes Fuernkranz
Just to make that clear: I do have lag. I do lose games where I have 2 minutes
or so left on my clock because the server doesn't get its next move over the big
lake (its not better with EURO-ICS either).
I just don't care.
I can play lots of good blitz games on the ICS servers (although some of them
incomplete) and that's what I really care about.
Again: I'm quite pleased with what we've got. Doesn't mean there can't be
anything better, though.
Juffi
PLN Murthy
I am not sure whether my previous post made it. And I feel like I should
post my frustrations reagarding the lag too in order to keep it off my
chess. Here is my post which I tried once before:
I want to bring a couple of issues regarding the lag which frustrate
me most. First of all let me tell you that I end up aborting two to three
games every now and then because of lag. Ofcourse due to mutual agreement.
Some times a draw is agreed.
I notice a particular type of behavior in some players. They keep playing
on and on till they finally get into time trouble etc and lose on time.
then they shout at you, curse at you, and claim lag etc.. Why the
hell they should be that greedy in the first place. Why could not they
inform in advance? Obviously they want to try till last sec to win and
if not then they want to claim on lag. This is totally abusive behavior
to me. It happens quite often to me. Last but not least, I am not
going to give anyone a free game just because they happen to have lag.
I have a lag too often amounting to 40 to 60% packet loss! I am
perfectly willing to settle for an abort or at the most a draw.
But I must be informed or the position and lag must be highly obvious
to me. If a GM type win is there, I am likely to miss guys. Also,
many times my subjective judgement of the position could be
wrong. I might think mistakenly that I am winning so I dont care
anyway. How can this be my fault?
Finally making laws which can no way be enforced is not good in my opinion.
Instead it is better to educate every ICS player as to what lag means and
what the worst that can happen and kinda warn them in advance so that they
are not shocked when lost.
YOUR LAG IS NOT MY PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME. FALCON
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Eric S. Perlman
>In article <2qtabq$f...@lace.Colorado.EDU>,
>
>>No, I am *NOT* extremely worried about my rating on the chess server.
>
>There are many different games in existence. For players of a game,
>it is usually considered "ethical" to play by the rules.
>
>On ICS, the stated rules are that if your clock is negative, and your
>opponent types "flag", you lose.
>
>I can understand that you don't *like* this. I can even understand
>that you don't think it is *fair*. You're welcome to lobby for a
>change in the rules. But I refuse to classify this behaviour as
>unethical.
It is both unfair and unethical. It is very similar to logging off
in a lost position, so that you don't have to resign. That behavior was
*also* legal under the rules of the ICS till the rules were changed.
>And by the way, calling flag is not only allowed at chess clubs,
>tournaments, and informal play, it is ENCOURAGED. Flag down, you
>lose. Even if its because you fell asleep during the game, or have a
>physical disability that makes it harder for you to move the pieces, or
>because you were distracted by what was happening at the game to your
>left. You might not even be in the room when your flag falls, it
>doesn't matter. Flag down, you lose. People who can't show up at the
>start of their game lose, and it isn't fair if it's because their car
>broke down, but it is the *rules*. Lag on ICS is the equivalent to car
>break downs in real-world chess games.
I know that, sir. I've been playing in tournaments for 15 years, and
I've been a tournament director the last 6. I've played in clubs in
seven different states, and in tourneys in 6 states. I doubt there is
much you could tell me about what goes on and what doesn't at a
tournament or a chess club.
As to your argument, it is utterly irrelevant, for the following reason:
Lag on ICS occurs *while* a game is currently in progress. It is more
akin to a 300 pound linebacker standing in my way not letting me return
to the board *WHILE A GAME IS GOING ON*. It is in no way equivalent to
car break-downs durin a real-world chess game because the game would
already have started in an analogous case, and both players would be at
the tournament site. Any comparison to falling asleep or the like is
also equally invidious. You fall asleep, it's your fault. Lag is no
one's fault. Let's say your opponent suffers a seizure during a game
*AND YOU KNOW ABOUT IT*. Or someone prevents him or her from reaching
the board to make a move and you know about it. Those would be
equivalent claims during a tournament.
>Be honest with what you mean. You don't mean that players are
>unethical, you mean that the rules work in their favour and you want to
>change the rules so that they work in YOUR favour.
In a word, bull pucky. I have no such motives, and I seriously resent
your trying to impute them to me. I demand an apology.
Rest deleted.
--
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
Eric S. Perlman <per...@qso.colorado.edu>
Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder
Eric S. Perlman
Essentially, yes; though I would actually put it in these terms "in
positions which are still debatable," since many many pawn-down
positions are quite defensible.
Eric S. Perlman
Hardly, and you know it.
Further, your suggestion is not a good one: All three of the lag-flags
have been while playing on my workstation on my desk at the University
of Colorado. CU is a main internet distribution node, and has a top of
the line connection. And I'm not using a modem then.
Steve Mayer
: In article <smayerCp...@netcom.com> sma...@netcom.com (Steve Mayer)
: writes:
: >: In article <smayerCp...@netcom.com> sma...@netcom.com (Steve Mayer)
: >: writes:
: > [SM's stuff about club blitz chess deleted]
[EP's first reply deleted]
[part of my second reply deleted on improving one's connection]
: >[people should] take steps to improve their connection, e.g., buy a
better modem or find a better service provider. May I suggest a 14400 and
Netcom? ;-)
: Hardly, and you know it.
: Further, your suggestion is not a good one: All three of the lag-flags
: have been while playing on my workstation on my desk at the University
: of Colorado. CU is a main internet distribution node, and has a top of
: the line connection. And I'm not using a modem then.
You have also indicated in other posts that you play from home with a
2400 modem. It sounds as if you're playing from work during peak hours. I
once got lag-flagged in a lost position (didn't bother me) around 13:00 ETS
and by the time I regained control of my machine, my oppo had started another
game with a different player. Them's the breaks.
-Steve
Paul Colley
Andy McFarland <amc...@ndlc.occ.uky.edu> wrote:
>I propose ICS allow a new style that requires moves to be sent with a
>time stamp. ICS could use something like 'ping' to make spot
>verifications.
Won't work. My problem with lag comes from dropped packets. When the
packet arrives (99% of the time), it arrives quickly. When it doesn't
arrive I get a LOOOONNNNG lag.
A ping (just another packet, asychronous with my lagged telnet
connection) probably isn't going to show the lag, so the ICS software
would conclude my front-end is cheating.
And ultimately, anyone who owns a dedicated machine has complete
control over what the rest of the world sees. Including ping and
all the other TCP/IP protocols.
You'll have to trust the front-end, and some front-ends are going to
cheat. That is a fact of life. The majority will be honest. And a
number of people won't have access to a front end that can time their
moves for them. Whether or not this is better than what we currently
have is a matter of debate. Personally, I like it better the way it
is. When I only have my lunch hour for a game, I sometimes play 30 0
games, and I know they'll be over in one hour, lag or no lag. If I get
down to a tense endgame with a minute left on the clock, I know my
opponent only has a minute to calculate, not some indefinite
lag-induced period.
What are you going to do about those with ASCII boards? Hardly seems
fair that their opponent gets this magic cure for lag, but they don't.
- Paul Colley
University: col...@qucis.queensu.ca
Home: paco...@ember.uucp watmath!ember!pacolley +1 613 545 3807
"Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is,
of course, living in a state of sin." - John von Neumann
Paul Colley
>I posted on this message ~.5 weeks ago. There *is* a method for ensuring
>that the client software doesn't lie [...]
> Method: (1) Make only executables available, compiled for
>the the various machines, because: (2) one of the first things the executable
>does is verying that it is a "blessed" copy. There are various ways of
>accomplishing (2).
Unlike nettrek, what we want to ensure is an honest clock.
How is your software going to tell what time it is? This is a
non-trivial question. Under a variety of operating systems it is easy
to mislead software about what time it is, and that is all that is
required to make a cheating front end.
Paul Colley
> The idea is to provide the
>best chess server possible. Amoung the features that make a chess server
>good is realism.
It's not obvious that more realism for the sake of realism is
necessarily good, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.
I mean, with a good front-end we could simulate the touch-move rule,
the sounds of the pices being moved, the sight of pieces slightly off
position in the squares, and (with extra hardware) the smell of an
unwashed opponent, but would it be an improvement?
> A chess server that actually gives you five minutes of
>thinking/move-entering time in a 5 0 game is realistic, i.e. this is the
>situation we encounter outside of the ICS micro-world.
A chess server that actually has a 5 0 game over in ten minutes is
realistic, i.e., this is the situation we encounter outside of the ICS
micro-world.
A chess server that counts every elapsed second against one of the
players clocks is realistiec, i.e., this is the situation we encounter
outside of the ICS micro-world.
Etc. This argument leads nowhere.
There are times when I would desperately LOVE a five-minute lag that
didn't count against my clock; when I have oodles of analysis to do and
no time to do it in. Even better when my opponents move is forced, but
that isn't necessary.
There are other times when such a lag would be purely to my opponent's
advatage; where under time pressure my opponent is fumbling and a few
minutes to reflect would aid tremendously in their understanding of the
position.
And most of the time such a uncounted lag would be just a pain in the
neck for both players.
Whether or not this is *better* than what we currently have, it sure
isn't any more realistic.
>James Riechel
>jrie...@cc.gatech.edu
James Alan Riechel
>In article <jriechel....@cc.gatech.edu>,
>James Alan Riechel <jrie...@gaia.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>I posted on this message ~.5 weeks ago. There *is* a method for ensuring
>>that the client software doesn't lie [...]
>> Method: (1) Make only executables available, compiled for
>>the the various machines, because: (2) one of the first things the executable
>>does is verying that it is a "blessed" copy. There are various ways of
>>accomplishing (2).
>Unlike nettrek, what we want to ensure is an honest clock.
>How is your software going to tell what time it is? This is a
>non-trivial question. Under a variety of operating systems it is easy
>to mislead software about what time it is, and that is all that is
>required to make a cheating front end.
I've never considered using "time stamp" information in any of my
discussions. I only figured that a client would send to ICS (along w/
your next move) the amount of *local time* elapsed since receiving your
opponent's last moves. That is, the time you used to decide upon and enter your
next move. Robert Hyatt has mentioned that pinging and timestamp could be used.
But I don't know enough about how the clocks of the computers connected to the
internet are synchronized.
My main arguments for a lag-adjusted clock mechanism on ICS are:
(1) It doesn't have to replace the old clock. There can be two clocks.
(2) While the current ICS clock mechanism gurantees that a game will be within
a certain time period, the proposed lag-adjusted clock guarantees equal time.
(There has been debate on this last point, namely whether a lag-adjusted clock
actually provides equal time to each players. But there is no need for
argument, because it is plainly true. See my mathematical proof of equal time
that I will post in a couple of days.)
(3) A secure client is feasible. At least, in principle. Why? Because other
people have done it. (I'm not telling anybody how or what to do. I'm only
making a logical arguments.)
--
James Riechel
jrie...@cc.gatech.edu