Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Clans Forum

Clans Forum

  1. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    04 May '17 17:44 / 1 edit
    So the Laikers have just won a challenge 3-1, with two of these wins being via timeout.

    The timeout games have not been counted, and so the challenge was tied 1-1 and so 1 point being given to each clan.

    We win 3 game out of 4, but get only 1 point... 3 points less than we should have.

    This is ridiculous.
    Time management is part of the game, so if a player does not move and is then timed out, why should the opposing team lose points???

    Clan challenge 288982
  2. 04 May '17 17:47
    possibly because the opponent never made a move, a problem in the past has been clans setting up games against players they know are inactive so perhaps a move to avoid this?
  3. 04 May '17 20:35
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
    So the Laikers have just won a challenge 3-1, with two of these wins being via timeout.

    The timeout games have not been counted, and so the challenge was tied 1-1 and so 1 point being given to each clan.

    We win 3 game out of 4, but get only 1 point... 3 points less than we should have.

    This is ridiculous.
    Time management is part of the game ...[text shortened]... t move and is then timed out, why should the opposing team lose points???

    Clan challenge 288982
    You may want to go to site announcements.
  4. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    04 May '17 21:33
    Originally posted by Wycombe Al
    possibly because the opponent never made a move, a problem in the past has been clans setting up games against players they know are inactive so perhaps a move to avoid this?
    Hi Al,

    Although I get this point, this removing of timeout games when a player hasn't moved could be used to gain an advantage.

    Here's an example:

    Let's say a 4-person challenge is created, with 2 match-ups slightly in favour of one clan and 2 match-ups in favour of the other, so an "even" challenge.

    One clan, realising this timeout clause, can just tell their "unfavourable players" to simply not move,
    these games would therefore not be counted, they could win the other 2 favourable games and so win the challenge... albeit netting less points, but it still means the other clan would be losing points through no real fault of their own.

    I know these things happen sometimes, maybe life gets in the way and people suddenly cannot make any moves,
    but if a challenge has been agreed by two leaders then all results should count, period.

    Perhaps this point can be raised elsewhere, should it not get sufficient attention here.
  5. 04 May '17 21:50
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
    Hi Al,

    Although I get this point, this removing of timeout games when a player hasn't moved could be used to gain an advantage.

    Here's an example:

    Let's say a 4-person challenge is created, with 2 match-ups slightly in favour of one clan and 2 match-ups in favour of the other, so an "even" challenge.

    One clan, realising this timeout claus ...[text shortened]... iod.

    Perhaps this point can be raised elsewhere, should it not get sufficient attention here.
    Yes. It is imperfect.
    But still better than a player and clan getting credit for an opponent just not showing up for his/her game.

    Site already has some logic in the system that a game is not rated until after 3 moves.
    So putting in some requirement that a game qualifies as a result is not really off the wall.
    And yes, it is open to abuse.

    But the abuse was much much worse with the current setup.
    I do appreciate your concerns.
  6. 04 May '17 22:12
    I agree but an issue was that colluding clans used the inactive players to great effect ( ie panterman), they set up numerous challenges with inactive players so I guess this an attempt to stop this, as players now inactive for a long period are automatically made inactive for challenges this will become less of an issue going forward
  7. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    04 May '17 22:25
    Originally posted by Wycombe Al
    I agree but an issue was that colluding clans used the inactive players to great effect ( ie panterman), they set up numerous challenges with inactive players so I guess this an attempt to stop this, as players now inactive for a long period are automatically made inactive for challenges this will become less of an issue going forward
    Or... they could just kick the inactive members from the clans altogether?

    Not only will this new timeout rule NOT stop collusion (as I said, players can purposely not move)
    but it adversely affects ALL clans.

    Clan leaders must agree to challenges before they can start... all should be fair from that point onward.

    If they really want to stop collusion, simply kick the inactive players and ban the rest if they are obvious repeat offenders.

    Other sites do it, why can't this one???
  8. 04 May '17 22:45
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
    Or... they could just kick the inactive members from the clans altogether?

    Not only will this new timeout rule NOT stop collusion (as I said, players can purposely not move)
    but it adversely affects ALL clans.

    Clan leaders must agree to challenges before they can start... all should be fair from that point onward.

    If they really want to sto ...[text shortened]... d ban the rest if they are obvious repeat offenders.

    Other sites do it, why can't this one???
    It wasn't just inactive players.
    It was also active players selecting specific games to just timeout their games.
  9. Subscriber shortcircuit
    The Energizer
    04 May '17 23:44
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
    So the Laikers have just won a challenge 3-1, with two of these wins being via timeout.

    The timeout games have not been counted, and so the challenge was tied 1-1 and so 1 point being given to each clan.

    We win 3 game out of 4, but get only 1 point... 3 points less than we should have.

    This is ridiculous.
    Time management is part of the game ...[text shortened]... t move and is then timed out, why should the opposing team lose points???

    Clan challenge 288982
    The thing you need to understand is that ALL clans we modified in the same fashion,
    so it is fairly administrated to all. Basically, the challenge was treated as a 1 on 1, and the
    players split, so it should be 1 point each.
  10. Subscriber roma45
    st johnstone
    05 May '17 11:56
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    The thing you need to understand is that ALL clans we modified in the same fashion,
    so it is fairly administrated to all. Basically, the challenge was treated as a 1 on 1, and the
    players split, so it should be 1 point each.
    all clans have had points adjusted,some no change as they had no timeout wins but the easy riders have lost more points than anyone elae, punishment for playing obvious dead players "panterman" over and over again

    lets see how many points the scum riders have after collusion adjustment
  11. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    05 May '17 16:37
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    The thing you need to understand is that ALL clans we modified in the same fashion,
    so it is fairly administrated to all. Basically, the challenge was treated as a 1 on 1, and the
    players split, so it should be 1 point each.
    I know this and understand this.

    What I'm concerned about is that we may now see a rise of occurrences where people in challenges don't move.

    Sometimes it could purely be down to an inactive player, sure....
    but it could also be done on purpose.

    Either way, I've messaged my guys to not claim such games until they're looked into.

    If I see any case where a player is not moving in a challenge,
    but is otherwise active on the site (moving in other games)
    I'll report this player and request for them to be kicked from clans altogether.

    This is fair enough, yes?
  12. 05 May '17 16:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
    I know this and understand this.

    What I'm concerned about is that we may now see a rise of occurrences where people in challenges don't move.

    Sometimes it could purely be down to an inactive player, sure....
    but it could also be done on purpose.

    Either way, I've messaged my guys to not claim such games until they're looked into.

    If I see ...[text shortened]... his player and request for them to be kicked from clans altogether.

    This is fair enough, yes?
    Just to be clear, the issue Russ corrected is not the timeout.
    It corrects games not reaching 5 moves.

    If a player times out on move 6, the game counts.
    If a player resigns on move 3, the game doesn't count.
  13. Subscriber shortcircuit
    The Energizer
    05 May '17 18:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
    I know this and understand this.

    What I'm concerned about is that we may now see a rise of occurrences where people in challenges don't move.

    Sometimes it could purely be down to an inactive player, sure....
    but it could also be done on purpose.

    Either way, I've messaged my guys to not claim such games until they're looked into.

    If I see ...[text shortened]... his player and request for them to be kicked from clans altogether.

    This is fair enough, yes?
    I really doubt this incident is occurring outside of the the cheats who were merely resigning
    their games early in order to get more challenges where they could do the same and
    harvest more points for the the Easy Riders.

    I know Russ has already instituted a system check that won't allow long term non-movers from being included in challenges.
    I can't imagine a benefit of not moving in normal circumstances, not to say that couldn't happen.
    In this instance. McTayto and a couple of others, did it habitually, with McTayto being
    the worst abuser.
  14. Subscriber 64squaresofpain
    The drunk knight
    05 May '17 22:38
    Originally posted by mghrn55
    Just to be clear, the issue Russ corrected is not the timeout.
    It corrects games not reaching 5 moves.

    If a player times out on move 6, the game counts.
    If a player resigns on move 3, the game doesn't count.
    Yes I get it, it stops premature ends, the exact wording on the site announcements page is:
    "Ignores all wins under 5 moves"

    I know I'm being pedantic now, but....

    What if somehow on correspondence chess someone get's scholars mated?

    1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7#


    Checkmate.... but wouldn't be counted.
  15. 05 May '17 22:50
    Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
    Yes I get it, it stops premature ends, the exact wording on the site announcements page is:
    [b]"Ignores all wins under 5 moves"


    I know I'm being pedantic now, but....

    What if somehow on correspondence chess someone get's scholars mated?

    1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 d6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7#
    [fen]rnbqkb1r/ppp2Qpp/3p1n2/4p3/2B1P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1K1NR[/fen]

    Checkmate.... but wouldn't be counted.[/b]
    A good player would make sure that doesn't happen.