Suggestion - nominated stand-in

Came up in another thread, but Russ might notice it if I put it here 🙂

Would it be nice if people who were going on holiday were allowed to temporarily substitute a stand-in player, of max rating no higher than theirs or their opponents.

I don't know that this is a good idea.

Vacations happen .... games might time out, but I think the complications arising from having site-authorized proxy players will far outweigh the problems it'll solve.

I guess my opinion is that either the vacation is more important, or you'll find a way to locate an internet cafe in the vicinity. Or, you can just give a friend your username/password and not tell anyone about it for the one time it might happen...


Perhaps a better solution? Have a "moretime" option where you can grant your opponent more time in their timebank. The point of tournaments having a forced time out is to keep them moving along ... perhaps there could be a "one moretime per round" limit for tournament games, and purely discretionary additions for anything else?

For myself, if I were going on vacation and knew I'd not have access available I'd rather talk to my opponent and arrange a "moretime" in advance rather than hope my opponent didn't change his mind/ forget/ etc.

Perhaps a better solution? Have a "moretime" option where you can grant your opponent more time in their timebank. The point of tournaments having a forced time out is to keep them moving along ... perhaps there could be a "one moretime per round" limit for tournament games, and purely discretionary additions for anything else?

Well there is nothing to actually stop anyone doing this already, but I certainly wouldn't want anyone else using my account.

I've actually be in the middle of a game and suddenly noticed that my opponent's style has changed, when I enquired I was suprised to be told that the user was letting his young son have a go at chess that evening! 🙄

I tried asking for more time from an opponent, as a gentlemans agreement sort of thing, however as the game was in a tournament the auto-time out kicked in and all was lost.

I understand the importance of keeping Tournaments moving but the first round of this particular tournament took six months to complete, so after having waited all this time it is a touch fustrating to then be timed out.

I can see both sides of the argument, if there was no timeout then this would be abused and people in lost positions would just abondon the game. With a time out I run the risk of losing games if I go on holiday.

What I have learnt is that if I accept a game knowing that I have to make a move within 3 days then I must stick to this agreement. I must also plan a few years ahead when making a decision to accept this agreement when Tournaments are concerned. For this reason I will not be entering any more tornaments with a 3 day timeout.

I understand the importance of keeping Tournaments moving but the first round of this particular tournament took six months to complete, so after having waited all this time it are concerned. For this reason I will not be entering any more tornaments with a 3 day timeout. [/b]

Thanks Russ

As it happens the Tournament I was referring to started before Timebanks were introduced. Indeed you are correct, if there was a timebank this would have overcome the problem.