AUTOMATIC TERMINATION FOR SLOW PLAY.

Originally posted by AJAXO
I have been puzzled as to why there is some kind of moral issue in claiming a game due to a time lapse. It should be automatic, RHP keeping a CHESS CALENDER, just like a CHESS CLOCK. When the flag falls the balloon goes up. Why all the argle-bargle?

Suppose you and your opponent have been having a close game, and both you and he/she have scheduled vacations the duration of which will ensure that whichever of you doesn't move last will time-out. If both of you are enjoying the game, and want to take a temporary hiatus from play to go on vacation, then shouldn't you two have the option of not having the game timeout? Suppose you or your opponent are beset by computer problems, or have a family emergency, or have a busy week at work. Any number of unforseen difficulties could place you in time trouble. But if you and your opponent both agree that in such cases it is preferable to continue the game rather than take the win, shouldn't you have the option of granting yoru opponent extra time?

Originally posted by AJAXO
I have been puzzled as to why there is some kind of moral issue in claiming a game due to a time lapse. It should be automatic, RHP keeping a CHESS CALENDER, just like a CHESS CLOCK. When the flag falls the balloon goes up. Why all the argle-bargle?

I agree that there is FAR too much drama concerning the time outs. I do think that there are circumstances that offer the question of "when and why" it is "right" to claim a time out. Common circumstances in question are if your opponent is on vacation and if the opponent has a decent piece and/or placement advantage at the time you can claim TO.

I'll give myself as an example for "questionable" time out "ethics". I play when at my office and only when at my office. Thusly, every week there is a two day period in which I can't make moves. On two occasions I have returned to work to find my ISP down, extending my abscence from the site to three day. On both occasions I was playing games with three day TOs, all of which were claimed. In every case except one I had the advantage in pieces and I was not sent a reminder by my opponent. (funny enough, the one that had the advantage in pieces is also the one that sent me a reminder)

Because it was (naturally) within the rules, I accepted this without complaint. Nonetheless, it made me really think about what is polite and courteous when claiming TOs. I must admit that it chaps me a little that almost a third of my losses are from being timed out on the minimum limit, but I take it as a lesson learned.

On the same note, now that we have TO filters I don't see how anyone has a reason to complain. I'm not sore at those that have taken TOs on me and I don't expect others to be sore at me if I ever take it on them. It is all well within our own control.

Bottom line: Use the filter and send reminders. If you combine these two, then there should be MUCH less controversy. Some people here are very competitive and others are rather lax, but with the system as it is I think there shouldn't be any problems occuring that couldn't have been headed off before hand.

Originally posted by Omnislash
I agree that there is FAR too much drama concerning the time outs. I do think that there are circumstances that offer the question of "when and why" it is "right" to claim a time out. Common circumstances in question are if your opponent is on vacation and if the opponent has a decent piece and/or placement advantage at the time you can claim TO.

I ...[text shortened]... hink there shouldn't be any problems occuring that couldn't have been headed off before hand.

just to add my 2 cents to what you wrote... I think the guy who didn't time you out is the more competative... where as the other guys wanted easy wins. You should play 7 days to avoid the problem... but it does make for slower game. You have a good attitude about time outs.