Timeouts, vacations, adjudications and suspensions

While it is quite entertaining to read the vacation flag thread, it is quite clear that timeouts and vacations are still a big concern, and both side of the argument have valid points.

My view is that when you start a game you have entered into a “contract” that specifies the time constraints. Personally, I’d rather not have the discretion to time my opponent out. I’d much prefer timeouts to be fully automatic. But this is just a personal preference, and there are many other views and circumstances that would support a more flexible approach, provided both parties to a game are agreeable – basically an escape clause.

One possible escape clause would be the ability for players to mutually agree to submit their game to adjudication when it becomes clear that one or other player cannot complete the game for whatever reasons. All that is required is a FEN of the game, independent analysis software such as Fritz, and a pre-determined range of scores signifying white win, draw or black win. I’m sure it could even be automated.

I can think of several instances when I would happily have agreed this route rather than time my opponent out.

This should also be an additional option to claiming the win when the skull appears. Yes, you are entitled to the win, but I think many players would be happier to click an adjudication button, and even risk losing, rather than claim a hollow victory.

Another enhancement could be the ability for players to mutually agree to suspend their game indefinitely, until both players are ready to resume. When suspended, the clock stands still in the game. Obviously this would not work for tournaments, clan games or sieges (where third parties are also affected), but would be fine for open invites and challenges.

The mechanics of both adjudication and suspension during game play would be similar to offering a draw. One player plays, and requests it (and can state reasons in the message box) and the other player either accepts it or (by moving) rejects it.

There would have to be an “unsuspend” option in the case of a suspended game (so the game can be mutually resumed at a later date.)

With the above options, and the excellent timebank system, I see no need for discretionary timeouts or vacation flag fraud. Make timeouts automatic. But give the “victor” the option of either claiming the win, or submitting the game for adjudication.

I think there are some good ideas here. Mutual suspension of a game would probably work just as well as the vacation flag for the majority of people, although I would like to hear other people's views on whether this is better. Is a joint agreement going to cause less friction, or will there be trouble when people refuse to agree to a suspension request?

I especially like the adjudication idea - it could give the player who's been waiting around the chance to end the game, but unlike the current 'claim win' it wouldn't guarantee you a positive result. More of an incentive to keep playing unless the result is obvious.

The real trick would be creating an automatic adjudication/game analysis method - I think it would HAVE to be automatic because of the scale of the site.

Any advice from the illustrious creators of RHP as to whether they can think of a way of submitting a game to an engine, getting the answer back as to who would have won on the balance of probabilities, and feeding that back into RHP?

While correspondance chess and OTB are not identical games, it is clear that OTB is the grand-daddy here and is the place to look for procedures in play. And for rated OTB games, there is always a clock.

I think it is quite reasonable that two peope having a game between themselves should not be constrained by the clock: however, without the clock the game has ceded its right to be rated.

Where there are more than two players involved (touneys, clan games, seiges), the two players in the given game have no right to discard the timing conditions set and agreed by all players in the touney/clan/seige.

So I would propose the following:

Unrated games: keep everything as it is. Timeouts, timebanks, claim wins or don't etc.

Rated individual games: when the clock runs out, the opponent must choose either to claim the win (and get the points) or to convert the game to unrated, from where they no longer have to claim the win if they don't want to.

Rated Touneys, seiges, clans: auto timeout. The group-agreed rules have priority.

Unrated tourneys/seiges/clans (if such exist): unrated, so do as you please.

This subject seems never ending ... I like the idea of taking control away from players and automating ( regardless of vacation flag ) so that when you agree to play a game you know that if you do not move within the specified period rhp will time you out and award a win to your opponent... remember you have a move timeout period and a time bank period... which is long enough for correspondence chess.

whats the problem? 😏

Might I remention my idea in the other thread, that if (non-paying) player A is playing player B, and player B's time (and timebank) is up, but A is being nice and not claiming the game - then the game should not be considered as counting towards player A's maximum number of concurent games.

Only if it's a weekday and there's an R in the month! 😉