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

Help Forum

  1. 05 May '04 21:03
    As anyone who is watching would know, a player has risen to the top of the rankings BY TIMING OUT LOST or DRAWN GAMES. The fact that this is within the rules is absurd and should lead to the conclusion that the rules are flawed!

    Let us look at an example, let us say we have a 7 day TO + 28 day timebank game… the position is obviously won for you, but you will need maybe 20 moves to maneuver me into a checkmate… if, playing in this person’s style, I move ONLY at the last minute… just WAITING for you to go on vacation… that is 7X20+28 days…. 168 days!!! I can delay the game for nearly half a year in a LOST POSITION!

    Perhaps a system similar to what they have on gameknot, and what many other people have proposed is in order. Perhaps it is a point of pride… we pride ourselves in having a different system… let us ask all the users… let us take a poll… let us do away with the timebank and implement a system where sketchy play is NOT rewarded!!!
  2. 05 May '04 21:18
    I agree there is a glitch with the system of timebanks and time outs at the moment. If we had postponements then all games would have to stop so the system would be much harder to abuse.
    At the moment we're missing out on a lot of good players to that other site because of this issue
  3. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    05 May '04 21:21
    I don't quite understand your point.

    I think the timebank works for the simple reason that I hardly ever dip into mine. I am playing 80 odd games and I try to play a move on each game once a day, sometime twice if the player makes a move during the day.

    So, basically, I play 3 day timeout games with a 7 day timebank. I take on as many games as I am able to actually move in on, so I hardly ever see those little clocks ticking against my games.

    Forget timeouts / timebanks / vacation flags - the simple equation should be don't take on more games unless you can make the moves. My limit is 100 concurrent games, I'm sure there are people who can play more and many who can play less. You have to find your limit and keep to it.
  4. 05 May '04 21:26
    for players who don't abuse the timebank, it is a good system...

    my point is that the timebank has a flaw in that it CAN be abused...
  5. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    05 May '04 21:29
    I don't understand how the time bank can be abused - the only way I have seen it "abused" is when a lazy player has exhausted it through their own lack of ability to come to the site regularly and make the moves in the games they've agreed to take on - and then trying to hide behind the "vacation flag".
  6. 05 May '04 21:32
    how about the example? do you feel it is ok to be able to postpone a game for half a year in a LOST position just waiting for someone to go on vacation?
  7. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    05 May '04 21:36
    Absolutely not! If someone puts a vacation flag on in one of my games I monitor them, if I see they are continuing to move then I time them out. If the vacation flag stays on for over a month I time them out.

    I would never agree to play a game with a time bank greater than 14 days. Once the time bank has gone and you've allowed a reasonable amount of time for "vacation" (2 to 4 weeks) then you time out the player and claim your win.

    The postponement system at GameKnot is even more lax and allows this type of player to prolong lost games even further, in my opinion.
  8. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    05 May '04 21:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by jpseve
    how about the example? do you feel it is ok to be able to postpone a game for half a year in a LOST position just waiting for someone to go on vacation?
    So what you really mean is that it's the "Vacation Flag" that's being abused, not the time bank system.

    I suggested in another thread that either -

    a) You can only use your "Vaction Flag" one a month.

    or

    b) Once within any one game.

    Implementing a restriction in the use of the "Vacation Flag" would soon root out those likely to abuse it.

    Funnily enough the player I was having trouble with, who would put his "Vacation Flag" on every day once he'd finished moving has stopped doing that since I posted in the forums and hasn't put his "Vacation Flag" on since!
  9. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    05 May '04 22:38
    At the moment it seems that it is possible to exploit the "vacation" either by putting it on to avoid people claiming wins against you or waiting for your opponent to go away to claim a win against them, even if you're losing the game.

    So...

    This is how we can fix this.

    Make the "Vacation Flag" halt all games - that is whilst the flag is up nobody can time out against you.

    However, limit the number of times you can put up your "Vacation Flag" to once a month. This would discourage people from casually putting it up once they've exhausted their time banks.

    I believe this is the best solution to a significant problem, if y'all agree then recommend it so Russ can make it so!
  10. Standard member Ravello
    The RudeĀ©
    05 May '04 22:42
    Originally posted by Exy
    Absolutely not! If someone puts a vacation flag on in one of my games I monitor them, if I see they are continuing to move then I time them out. If the vacation flag stays on for over a month I time them out.

    I would never agree to play a game with a time bank greater than 14 days. Once the time bank has gone and you've allowed a reasonable amount of ti ...[text shortened]... ven more lax and allows this type of player to prolong lost games even further, in my opinion.
    Just a precisation on postponement on gameknot:if your opponent make at least five moves in other games he's playing you can cancel the postponement,and if his time would be finished during the postponement you can time him out.
    Uh,it isn't really you that timeout your opponent ,on Gameknot timeouts are automatic,so the ethical problem is solved.
  11. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    05 May '04 23:39
    Originally posted by jpseve
    As anyone who is watching would know, a player has risen to the top of the rankings BY TIMING OUT LOST or DRAWN GAMES. The fact that this is within the rules is absurd and should lead to the conclusion that the rules are flawed!

    Let us look at an example, let us say we have a 7 day TO + 28 day timebank game… the position is obviously won for you, but yo ...[text shortened]... let us do away with the timebank and implement a system where sketchy play is NOT rewarded!!!
    Only a fool would agree to a 7 day timeout with a 28 day timebank. 3 day timebanks are the only ones that are even worth considering.
  12. Standard member Coletti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    06 May '04 00:34 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by jpseve
    As anyone who is watching would know, a player has risen to the top of the rankings BY TIMING OUT LOST or DRAWN GAMES. The fact that this is within the rules is absurd and should lead to the conclusion that the rules are flawed!

    Let us ...[text shortened]... ank and implement a system where sketchy play is NOT rewarded!!!
    The Timebank has little to do with it. Your illustration of 7 day x 20 moves gives you 140 days. The additional 28 days only adds an additional 20% to the games total time at most. And if you agree to a 7 day game, you agree to play as long as it takes. If the game take 52 moves, your talking about one year. Welcome to coorespondence chess.

    If you talking about skeeter's games. What I saw were almost all tournament games which timeout automatically.

    I personally don't like gaining ratings by timeouts. But they are necessary to keep players honest. You've got to know that many dishonest players would simply stop playing losing positions if a timeout would not effect their ratings.

    Timebanks can help speed up games. It's only the long timeout periods they have a major impact on the length of the game. Take you example of a 7 day timeout with a 28 day timebank. The equivalent in a 60 minute game OTB would be the effect of adding a 15 minute pause for each move! Shorten the timeout period, not the timebank!

    Besides. What would you propose? If you have no rating change on timeouts, then you will have REALLY long games. If you have a one-way change in ratings - the loser rating drops - the general effect would be to lower ratings system wide.

    Timeouts work. Timebanks make it better.

    Vote to keep timebanks and timeouts.

    EDIT: Congratulations to skeeter for making #1!
  13. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    06 May '04 00:41
    Originally posted by Coletti
    The Timebank has little to do with it. Your illustration of 7 day x 20 moves gives you 140 days. The additional 28 days only adds an additional 20% to the games total time at most. And if you agree to a 7 day game, you agree to play as long as it takes. If the game take 52 moves, your talking about one year. Welcome to coorespondence chess.

    If you ...[text shortened]... eral effect would be to lower ratings system wide.

    Timeouts work. Timebanks make it better.
    Well said! The fundamental point here is that when players initiate a game, or enter a clan or tournament, they are agreeing to make their moves within the specified TO period. Shorter timeout periods force players to move within a reasonable amount of time, while longer timebank periods prevent players from losing when unfortunate circumstances prevent them from making their moves on time. The current system is an efficient compromise, especially since players don't have to enter into games with time limitations they find too restrictive.
  14. 06 May '04 07:10
    Originally posted by Coletti
    The Timebank has little to do with it. Your illustration of 7 day x 20 moves gives you 140 days. The additional 28 days only adds an additional 20% to the games total time at most. And if you agree to a 7 day game, you agree to play as long as it takes. If the game take 52 moves, your talking about one year. Welcome to coorespondence chess.

    If you ...[text shortened]...

    Vote to keep timebanks and timeouts.

    EDIT: Congratulations to skeeter for making #1!
    Well said. I agree 100% with you and have recommended your post.

    -trekkie
  15. Standard member Toe
    06 May '04 08:50
    Originally posted by Coletti
    The Timebank has little to do with it.
    ...
    Shorten the timeout period, not the timebank!
    ...
    Timeouts work. Timebanks make it better.
    Another vote for good sense: keep the timebank.

    A 28 day timebank is a lot, but covers you for your holiday. If you keep making your moves within the time-per-move limit, you can go on vacation if you like and your opponent will not be able to time you out. The timebank protects you against time-abuse! It isn't much good for drawing out a finished game: it is the time per move that is the problem there.

    7 days per move is, as others have stated, actually rather slow. Your example would appear much less scarey on a 3 day move, 28 day timebank. Personally, I'd never accept a 7 day per move challenge from somebody I didn't know well. And I stay well away from the 7days tourneys.