Taking maximum time

Originally posted by Feivel
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 ...[text shortened]... ff half cocked and try to attribute something to me that I never said.

Feivel the Freethinker

Feivel,

Although I agree with you that it is disrespectful to consistently take the full amount of time between moves when it is not necessary, I still think the problem I raised above could occur on your proposal. I haven't attributed to you any view you haven't espoused in this thread. I'll try this again:

Suppose Player 1 and Player 2 have a tournament game against each other.

Suppose that Player 1 takes the maximum amount of time in making his moves in his tournament game vs. Player 2, while Player 2 makes his moves quickly after it becomes his turn.

Now, if your proposal was implemented, both Player 1 and Player 2 would be unable to create new games above the limit until their tournament game was completed.

Since Both Player 1 and Player 2 would be unable to create new games above the limit until their tournament game was completed, and since the completion of the game is delayed by the fact that Player 1 takes the maximum amount of time between moves, it follows that Player 1 can delay Player 2's ability to create new games above the limit. In effect, Player 2's ability to create new games above the limit would be held hostage by the delaying tactics of Player 1.

This is a simple consequence of what you said.

Originally posted by bbarr
Since Both Player 1 and Player 2 would be unable to create new games above the limit until their tournament game was completed, and since the completion of the game is delayed by the fact that Player 1 takes the maximum amount of time between moves, it follows that Player 1 can delay Player 2's ability to create new games above the limit. In effect, Player 2 ...[text shortened]... ostage by the delaying tactics of Player 1.

This is a simple consequence of what you said.

Bennett,

Once more I will ask you to stop ignoring one of the points i am raising. Player 1 is NOT (I repeat NOT again and again) taking the max time allowed per move UNTIL they add the extra 100 games. Now if (to use your terminology) player 1 can't add those extra 100 or so games and is not taking the max time per move then how exactly are they holding anybody hostage. Remember I always said that you can add games to stay at the max gameload allowed as you end games. Now why is that not understandable? Also if you agree that players taking max time is a problem, instead of misstating my idea why don't you propose a secondary solution?

Feivel the Freethinker

It seems to me that instead of trying to implement some complicated fix for this problem, we could look at the cause. 7 days a move can lead to v. long games of chess. A tournament with several rounds is bound to take years.

Doesn´t everyone agree that timebanks solve this problem and indeed that this is how postal/correspondence chess has been run for years.

I think players that join such lengthy tournaments should be prepared to live with it. After all it is what they agreed to when they signed up.

For new tournaments timebanks sound good. I for one would like to play games with 1 day timeout and 60 days of timebank. This would virtually guarantee that the maximum length of the games would be reasonable.

BadBishop.

The cause is agrees upon. A solution for the present is nowhere to be found in your post.

Feivel the Freethinker

Originally posted by Feivel
The cause is agrees upon. A solution for the present is nowhere to be found in your post.

Feivel the Freethinker

Surely the solution for the present is patience!

Originally posted by BadBishop
Surely the solution for the present is patience!

That is NOT a solution. That is the same as "ignore the bully and he will stop (probably after you have a broken arm)."

Feivel the Freethinker

Originally posted by Feivel
That is NOT a solution. That is the same as "ignore the bully and he will stop (probably after you have a broken arm)."

Feivel the Freethinker

Then let's lynch them ... Who will designate the criminals?
Please......

I'll take at least the first part of that advice. It was fun disagreeing with you. Enjoy!

Originally posted by Feivel
That is NOT a solution. That is the same as "ignore the bully and he will stop (probably after you have a broken arm)."

Feivel the Freethinker

Not sure I made myself clear - I'll take at least the first part of this advice. It was fun disagreeing with you. Enjoy!