My opinion : stop the use of the Timebank.
If people start to play in a tournament they should know that they have to play. In
ormal tournaments you can't stop playing to have a holiday ..... Don't hide yourself behind this stupid rule.
The same to people starting to play some other match. If you play, play on ... don't hide yourself because the match is going the wrong way to you .....
I also would like a penalty to those people who are playing like mad when the are winning, but when they are losing only moving once in days.
It's time to have a independent jury in Red Hot Pawn in those cases.
It's no longer fun playing this way.
Think about a yellow and red card system .... Let a jury judge this kind of playing. Three times yellow and you are out here !
Or is it the money-thing, Russ ?
Maybe the best thing to do, is stopping the use of the rating system !
HO
I could agree with you if the dotal duration of a tournament were relatively short and under control. I signed up for the first Long Haul tournament in november 2002 (no typo here!). I had no idea when the second round would start, nor whether I would take vacation in march 2004 or not at that time! We are talking correspôndence chess here. I am not claiming this is the best TO system in the world, but at least it is an attempt to make this issue smaller.
Gil.
The timebank feature both allows reasonable gaps in play and reduces the viability of bad players manipulating the time rules.
If you don't want games going on for ages, use a low number of days and a high timebank. That allows the unplanned break (e.g. due to PC problems), but stops 1 move per 2 weeks being viable.
I think the problem Ho is refering to is that games that are hopelessly lost get dragged out to avoid registering on the "bad" players ratings.
It is not really an issue about the outcome of tournaments.
But throwing away the rating system would ruin the game. Ratings are useful and add a lot of interest to the game.
Maybe a system could work where "in-progress" games are roughly "adjudicated" resulting in a provisional variation to a players rating, and the provisional variation forms part of your effective rating.
The adjudication could be based on a piece score (i.e. 1=pawn,3=knight,bishop,5=rook,8=queen,2=king. Total=40) .
For example, if a game is hopelessly one sided in favour of white, where white has peices worth 30 points on the board, and black has pieces worth 10 points, the "S" (usually 1 for a win, 0.5 for a draw, or 0 for a loss) in the rating calculation would be 30/(30+10) or 0.75 for white and 10/(35+10) or 0.25 for black.
Once a result becomes known (ie white wins), the S=0.75 would come out of the provisional variation, convert to S=1 and be applied to the "completed" rating in the usual way. The transition should be quite smooth.
In this way, much of the "rating" incentive for dragging a hopeless game out is removed.
Of course, this would have no effect on the outcome of tournaments. But it might speed them up! 🙂
Originally posted by flexmoreBTW, It's not like a fischer-clock: If you play fast, your "timebank" won't increase. It's like Delay: if you don't use your delay-time, your total time won't increase. (I don't know if that has better name.)
the timeout method is like a fischer-clock.
I think there's something wrong in the timeout:it's not right that timeout resets even though timebank started decreasing.
Once timeout period has gone it can't return when a player moves ,this sounds like never ending game!I met many players who,when timebank started,move every 2,99days or 6,99 days renewing timeout every time and then not playing till they're in timeout period expiring-danger and the game becomes an agony..........
Originally posted by RavelloBut that is the very idea of timeout - it's the number of days you are given per move. This being correspondence chess, I don't really see it as a problem when some play slowly (with the exception of tournament games). If you find that you're not getting big enough dosage of chess, just play a higher number of concurrent games.
I think there's something wrong in the timeout:it's not right that timeout resets even though timebank started decreasing.
Once timeout period has gone it can't return when a player moves ,this sounds like never ending game!I met many p ...[text shortened]... ut period expiring-danger and the game becomes an agony..........
Also, if slow players bother you, you can always choose to play shorter timeouts.
Which leads me to the original suggestion in this thread - I don't undestand how removing timebanks would solve the problem of some people slowing down when they are doing poorly; part of the reason timebanks were introduced in the first place was to get around this problem.
For example, whereas before you might not have wanted to play a 3-day timeout because you can't guarantee that there will not be a more-than-3-day period during a game when you can't play - but if you chose 7-days as the timeout period, then if you are bothered by people that slow down when they are loosing, with this longer timeout your opponent could stretch the game to last for ages - he could take the maximum 7 days for each move. So what is the solution? Timebank of course - you play, for example 3 day / 21 day timebank games, and you have the best of both worlds - you won't loose the game if, at some point, some real-world emergency takes you away from the game for more than 3 days, and your opponent can't stretch the game to last nearly as long as he could with a normal 7-day challenge. The timebank doesn't reset, so once it's used, he'll have to move at least once in three days.
Further, if that's still too long for you, you could play, for example, 1-day / 28 day timebank challenges - you'll be done with the game fairly quickly, even with a reluctant opponent.
Removing the timebank would return us to the time when 3-days was too little for most and 7-days too much for some; and it would make the problem of players that slow down worse, not better.
Besides, the timebank is optional, so if you don't like it, you can just play challenges without timebank.
-Jarno
Originally posted by PyrrhoI was speaking only about tournaments' games and out of 30 games in progress, 6 or 7 players move with 1 or 2 days frequency.This is my case.
[b]But that is the very idea of timeout - it's the number of days you are given per move. This being correspondence chess, I don't really see it as a problem when some play slowly (with the exception of tournament games). If you find that you're not getting big enough dosage of chess, just play a higher number of concurrent games.
Also, if slow players bother you, you can always choose to play shorter timeouts.
I agree with the other part of the post............
Originally posted by RavelloVery slow players in tournaments can be a problem indeed, because they slow down the entire tournament to a crawl. I wrote a suggestion that would solve this problem a while ago in the "Help & Site Ideas" forum. If you are interested, see the following thread:
I was speaking only about tournaments' games and out of 30 games in progress, 6 or 7 players move with 1 or 2 days frequency.This is my case.
I agree with the other part of the post............
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=7637
-Jarno
Originally posted by RavelloBut in tournaments timeouts are automatic anyway - vacation flag or not. If you enter a tournament, and go on a holiday longer than the timeout period, then, as it currently stands, you'll loose the games that you had in progress at the time. Tournaments are less forgiving in that way.
I think Time limit for every round is a great incentive for people to play, but if a player go on holiday just a few days before the limit expires,what happens?he will get timedout even though he has vacation flag?
-Jarno