Originally posted by BadBishopAnd if I decided while playing you in a 14 day TO tournament to start another 100+ games and make you and the other 50+ people in the tournament suffer through my 13 day wait between moves, then my deliberately making you wait a full 2+ years is a lack of respect to you and everyone else. If you can't understand or want to defend that practice, then you are more than a BadBishop 🙂
Not true. A tournament where the timeout is 7 days is a tournament where the timeout is 7 days. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.
It would be disrespectful to deliberately slow the tournament down out of malice not because you want to play more chess.
It seems the problem is fixed now with timebanks so why create a fuss? Surely you're not suggesting changing the rules halfway through a tournament?
Feivel the Freethinker
Originally posted by FeivelAre you saying that before entering a tournament with x days TO, people should contact you to to know what y<<x would be acceptable to you? And what has this to do with 100 other games or not?
And if I decided while playing you in a 14 day TO tournament to start another 100+ games and make you and the other 50+ people in the tournament suffer through my 13 day wait between moves, then my deliberately making you wait a full 2+ years is a lack of respect to you and everyone else. If you can't understand or want to defend that practice, then you are more than a BadBishop 🙂
Feivel the Freethinker
Originally posted by sintubinRead my post and explain where I asked anyone to contact me? It seems you and BadBishop either refuse to read what I write or enjoy claiming I wrote whatever you want me to 🙂
Are you saying that before entering a tournament with x days TO, people should contact you to to know what y<<x would be acceptable to you? And what has this to do with 100 other games or not?
Feivel the Freethinker
Originally posted by FeivelI have no relation with BadBishop. And I share the problem with you of tournaments and games that keep on going endlessly. However, I don't understand your rationale (there is one isn't it?). If you can construct something consistent - and meaningfull - out of what you wrote in this thread, then I am sure you, perhaps others too, will be able to explain it. So far, I fail to see it. :-)
Read my post and explain where I asked anyone to contact me? It seems you and BadBishop either refuse to read what I write or enjoy claiming I wrote whatever you want me to 🙂
Feivel the Freethinker
1 edit
fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
Originally posted by FeivelThis would make the situation even worse, since not only would you have to wait for people to make their moves in these tournaments, you would not be able to pass the time by starting new games. Or are you suggesting that the new game restrictions would only apply to people found to be "offenders"?
Russ,
in order to prevent certain people from moving at the limit of the TO can you somehow
estrict them from starting new games until their tournament games are complete. There are quite a few of this type of offenders here and it is EXTREMELY unfair to everybody in the same tournament with them. Without naming names there is one player who had about 10 ...[text shortened]... e the players name, PM me and i have no problem giving it/them to you.
Feivel the Freethinker
Originally posted by richjohnsonIf you reread my post you would see that the "limit" is equally applicable to everybody. It does not mean they can't participate in clan games (or round 2+ tournament games), it just means they can't raise their game load over a certain level while making others suffer with their drawn out tactics. It is also funny how NOBODY commented on my remark about Dantes and some people NOT entering new tournaments with shorter limits (due to the timebank). Russ has essentially prevented this problem from happening in the future, he, Chris or someone should eliminate the problem from happening now too. I am not the lone dissenter with this opinion on this site. So tell me, how would the situation get worse? Also you are not taking into account that as you end games, you can "make up" the void by starting new games.
This would make the situation even worse, since not only would you have to wait for people to make their moves in these tournaments, you would not be able to pass the time by starting new games. Or are you suggesting that the new game restrictions would only apply to people found to be "offenders"?
Feivel the Freethinker
Originally posted by FeivelOK, I think I've got it. As I understand it, the suggestion is to have an upper limit on concurrent games for people who are involved in unfinished tourney games, such that if they are over this limit they can't start new games (other than clan games and existing tournament games) or enter new tournaments. As long as the limit is sufficiently high, I've go no problem with that (I can't keep track of more than 30 or so games anyway). Now you just need to get consent from the other 642 players who are involved in pre-timebank tournaments in order to change the rules.
If you reread my post you would see that the "limit" is equally applicable to everybody. It does not mean they can't participate in clan games (or round 2+ tournament games), it just means they can't raise their game load over a certain level while making others suffer with their drawn out tactics. It is also funny how NOBODY commented on my remark about ...[text shortened]... as you end games, you can "make up" the void by starting new games.
Feivel the Freethinker
Of course, if someone is choosing to be difficult and deliberately dragging out a game or games out of spite, to hang on to those precious rating points for a few extra months, or some other silly reason, I suspect the suggested rule change would do little to speed up their play.
Originally posted by richjohnsonIf this propsal were implemented, and I was playing a person that moved very, very slowly, then would I be prevented from creating new games above the limit, merely because my opponent was keeping our tournament game going by playing so slowly. If so, then this proposal would allow a slow-moving player to hold their opponents hostage, preventing them from creating new games above the limit. This hardly seems an improvement.
OK, I think I've got it. As I understand it, the suggestion is to have an upper limit on concurrent games for people who are involved in unfinished tourney games, such that if they are over this limit they can't start new games (other than clan games and existing tournament games) or enter new tournaments. As long as the limit is sufficiently high, I ...[text shortened]... other silly reason, I suspect the suggested rule change would do little to speed up their play.
Bennett richjohnson seems to have understood the suggestion. I really am surprised that you can't see that it would NOT hinder an honest player but it would only hurt those intentionally slow movers that RHP would not miss if they chose to leave. One of them already has (or he just had a major hissy fit).
Feivel the Freethinker
Originally posted by FeivelWell, this is what you said: "in order to prevent certain people from moving at the limit of the TO can you somehow restrict them from starting new games until their tournament games are complete."
Bennett richjohnson seems to have understood the suggestion. I really am surprised that you can't see that it would NOT hinder an honest player but it would only hurt those intentionally slow movers that RHP would not miss if they chose to leave. One of them already has (or he just had a major hissy fit).
Feivel the Freethinker
You've also said such a limit was "equally applicable to everyone".
So, suppose Player 1 and Player 2 are paired off in a tournament. On your proposal, since both 1 and 2 have a tournament game in progress (against each other), neither will be allowed to create new games above some established limit until their tournament game against one another is completed. So, suppose that Player 1 takes the maximum time allowable between moves, but Player 2 makes his move every day. On your proposal, the delaying tactics of Player 1 will force Player 2 to wait to create new games above the limit, since that limit applies to both.
Bennett,
OK let me try to spell this out CLEARLY to you (although i and everybody else knows you understand). The players that take maximum time are NOT doing so for any legitamate reason. They have 100 games and they move every 3-4 days. All of a sudden they add 100 more games which they move everyday in and the first 100 games move rate goes down to 7-14 days. If they were not allowed to add the 100 or so later games, the move rate would stay at 3-4 days per move. Now clearly explain in the way only you can how that would be holding you hostage? Also, you berated someone for misrepresenting what you said so why do you feel it is ok to do so to me? Read my posts (I know you can) BEFORE you go off half cocked and try to attribute something to me that I never said.
Feivel the Freethinker
1 edit
Originally posted by FeivelFeivel,
Bennett,
OK let me try to spell this out CLEARLY to you (although i and everybody else knows you understand). The players that take maximum time are NOT doing so for any legitamate reason. They have 100 games and they move every 3-4 days. ...[text shortened]... ibute something to me that I never said.
Feivel the Freethinker
I think your logic was more clear to you yourself than to the readers - I myself was wondering the very same thing as Bbarr, and I'm reading your posts in this thread in a sympathetic light, since I do agree with you that the sorts of players you are critisising are a pretty serious problem.
I think your suggestion would probably work to speed up the tournaments, but I also think that there's a way to avoid any possibility of inconvenience to the fast player teemed up with the deliberately slow one. The solution could be to impose a sort of a "10% rule", so that once the last 10% of the games in a round were the only ones left running, the player in each pair that has used more time for their moves will be prevented from starting new games untill that tournament game was finished.
This would of course involve keeping record of how much time has been used by each player during the game, but especially now that the code is already there for timebanks, I don't think that making such a counter would be a huge task.
-Jarno