I'm in a challenge with a certain player that has a 7 day timeout. The player waits 6.5 days between moves to play. I can see that he's moving daily but just waiting to move right before the timeout happens. We've made 11 moves so far while everyone else in the challenge has been done for weeks. Fortunately I won one game fairly quickly (in seven moves) this one looks like it'll be a 40 mover, pushing a resolution of the game at this rate to 2006.
Now, am I being a bit anal here being frustrated here thinking this is poor etiquette? Clearly the site allows this. However I assumed the timeout is set as the "max" rather than the standard.
Granted, there's not much I can do (other than whine here) but to sit back and relax.
What are everyone else's thoughts on players that seem to intentionally wait until right before the timeout happens to move? I've had other clan members complain about this as well.
Originally posted by kwgoodwinIf you are not prepared to spend two years on a game, you should avoid correspondence chess. Two years is the standard.
I'm in a challenge with a certain player that has a 7 day timeout. The player waits 6.5 days between moves to play. I can see that he's moving daily but just waiting to move right before the timeout happens. We've made 11 moves so far while everyone else in the challenge has been done for weeks. Fortunately I won one game fairly quickly (in seven mo ...[text shortened]... t before the timeout happens to move? I've had other clan members complain about this as well.
Most people here, myself included, move way too fast.
Originally posted by WulebgrI second this comment. Timeouts and timebanks are there for a reason, to be used. If you don't like long timeouts. then next time choose a shorter one.
If you are not prepared to spend two years on a game, you should avoid correspondence chess. Two years is the standard.
Most people here, myself included, move way too fast.
Just because the person doesn't move in 6.5 days doesn't mean he's doing it deliberately to piss you off (although he may be doing just that!) He may just be thinking about the position for a few days, or only has time out for an hour each day to play, and can only focus on a few games at a time. Regardless, what you are pointing out isn't bad etiquette.
ok, lets go to the extreme.. I have an opponent that moves every 20 days.. for a 21/21 tournament.. you guys rag on kwgoodwin saying don't play correspondence chess.. and I know the opponent has every right to do what they are doing, but its still frustrating.. this game started dec 7th, and we've only played 13 moves.. at this pace, an average 30 move game will be about 630 days. The timebank is also down to less than half a day.. because one time he waited 42 days before making a move.
Then.. I was stupid enough to enter another Long Haul tournament.. Never again for sure. Just because something is allowed within the rules, doesn't mean its not frustrating..
I agree this can be frustrating, but I suppose it is simply that you should set less time per move and a bigger time bank.
What really annoys me is when I have games going on and my opponents will not resign in hopeless positions (and I don't mean positions that are just technically lost, I mean absurd material deficits). I know they can play on, but it would be surely good sportsmanship to resign rather than force games on for ages, espeically if they use their maximum time per move consistently.
I think the main reason people play on(me being one of them)is because you can learn an awful lot about chess when you're down on material,not everyone on this site are experts at the game and i feel it is unfair to expect someone to give up just because there is a huge material deficit,the game is a game,war is war,it aint over till the fat lady sings.I play because i want to play and learn from mistakes and other gamers.
WKš
Originally posted by WulebgrTwo years is NOT the standard,I played 2000+ games and the game which lasted more was six months.
If you are not prepared to spend two years on a game, you should avoid correspondence chess. Two years is the standard.
I can expect a game to last months,but waiting years to finish a game becomes frustrant and useless,you lose the sake for the game.
Originally posted by RavelloThe longest running tournament on RHP is 2-and-a-half years old and still running. While it's okay for some, not for me thanks.
Two years is NOT the standard,I played 2000+ games and the game which lasted more was six months.
I can expect a game to last months,but waiting years to finish a game becomes frustrant and useless,you lose the sake for the game.
Originally posted by buffalobillyes,I'm also in a tournament started on February2004 ,but we are talking about three rounds of a tourny,so we are talking about six games,I just can't understand a single game which goes on for two years.......
The longest running tournament on RHP is 2-and-a-half years old and still running. While it's okay for some, not for me thanks.
As has been pointed out, this is correspondence chess. One shouldn't expect games to be over with in next to no time. If one prefers Blitz, one can play elsewhere.
I've been playing a game with a friend for over seven years now and it's very exciting. Particularly for me, since I've had a Passed Prawn since 2003.
Originally posted by RavelloYou are correct. I should have clarified. Two years is the usual time limit for domestic postal chess (international events last longer). Since the emergence of email, rapidly displacing postal as the norm in correspondence chess, one year has been emerging as the time limit.
Two years is NOT the standard,I played 2000+ games and the game which lasted more was six months.
I can expect a game to last months,but waiting years to finish a game becomes frustrant and useless,you lose the sake for the game.
Server based correspondence chess generally proceeds faster than these standards because most players play too many games, and move too rapidly. They might as well be playing blitz.
At my ChessWorld.net (the best correspondence pace server) five days per move is called "lightning fast." I'm playing several games there at ten days per move.
At RHP I play 3 day with 7 day timebank almost exclusively. I play too fast much of the time, and my rating consequently suffers. In certain positions, however, I will use all of my available time as I look at the position repeatedly over several days. I've played thus not only when looking deperately for a draw in a bad position, but also while trying to finish a win in the least number of moves.
Originally posted by BowmannWow,what's the game purpose?
As has been pointed out, this is correspondence chess. One shouldn't expect games to be over with in next to no time. If one prefers Blitz, one can play elsewhere.
I've been playing a game with a friend for over seven years now and it's very exciting. Particularly for me, since I've had a Passed Prawn since 2003.
To wait for the death of one of the players?
Originally posted by RavelloI have often suspected that....I prefer 3/7 exclusively, and will only change that standard to play certain friends, and grudge matches. It's my preference and the one I seem to have the best luck at. I still have games from the 14 day move league going. My longest game so far was 6 1/2 months.
Wow,what's the game purpose?
To wait for the death of one of the players?