Hi,
I think that a player should not be able to claim a win on time if their last move was made whilst on vacation.
The reasoning is that if you are on vacation you are (supposedly) not going to be able to respond within the normal time limits. If you are playing regularly enough to burn your opponents time-bank you are not really on a vacation from chess, and are quite possibly using your vacation time as a strategic weapon.
(This just happened to me - my own fault because I somehow set my own vacation incorrectly. No problems with opponents, I would have claimed the wins myself... I just think it should not be allowed)
Originally posted by qyfI'd rather have my opponent continue to play moves on vacation.
Hi,
I think that a player should not be able to claim a win on time if their last move was made whilst on vacation.
The reasoning is that if you are on vacation you are (supposedly) not going to be able to respond within the normal time limits. If you are playing regularly enough to burn your opponents time-bank you are not really on a vacation from chess, ...[text shortened]... s with opponents, I would have claimed the wins myself... I just think it should not be allowed)
He can't use it as a 'weapon' to burn my timebank because I will not play events with a timebank-only control, like 0 days per move with 30 days. My timebank only burns when I fail to move, so that's on me.
For these reasons, I think the rules should stay as they are.
I disagree in part: being on vacation should imply that you are not going to move as frequently - in particular that you are not going to be able to meet your time obligations.
I was playing 1 day/move, which suits me but I often use a couple of hours here and there of time-bank from failing to move, (usually because I actually have work to do!) The very act of playing burns my timebank...
However, I too would prefer people to move during their vacation, so I wouldn't want to stop that. However, it would be nice to be able to stop the system being abused.
The current system is certainly bad, because all the advantage goes to the vacationing player. That is, vacationing player must move before vacationing, then the opponents clock starts. So the non-vacationing player is immediately under the onus to move, and the vacationing player can choose to move as they please, always putting an onus on the other player to move within the time-period.
Ideas:
a) Taking a vacation requires playing a sealed move (stops play during vacation)
b) Taking a vacation removes time restrictions on both players (gives slight advantage to non-vacationing player and completely changes the nature of a timed game)
I kind of like b, because it gives control to the player _not_ on vacation... the non-vacation player can also choose not to play in which case the game stops with the non-vacationing player getting the slight advantage of having the next move.
However, if the non-vacationing player agrees to continue, then the game becomes non-timed for both parties, which is fair.
Any other ideas?
Originally posted by qyfVacation 'abuse' is just an excuse made for losing. The real problem lies in choosing a time control that you cannot abide by. Perhaps try 1 day with a bigger timebank, like 14 days.
I disagree in part: being on vacation should imply that you are not going to move as frequently - in particular that you are not going to be able to meet your time obligations.
I was playing 1 day/move, which suits me but I often use a couple of hours here and there of time-bank from failing to move, (usually because I actually have work to do!) The very act ...[text shortened]... continue, then the game becomes non-timed for both parties, which is fair.
Any other ideas?
Originally posted by qyfPeople take vacation for their own personal reasons. Nowhere does it state that a vacation is "a
I disagree in part: being on vacation should imply that you are not going to move as frequently - in particular that you are not going to be able to meet your time obligations.
I was playing 1 day/move, which suits me but I often use a couple of hours here and there of time-bank from failing to move, (usually because I actually have work to do!) The very act ...[text shortened]... continue, then the game becomes non-timed for both parties, which is fair.
Any other ideas?
vacation from moving as frequently as I normally do."
Do some people use it as extra timebank? Sure, that's exactly what it is -- 30 days of extra
timebank if you feel you need it for whatever reason you might deem necessary. It's a nice
incentive for those wishing to spend a couple $$ a month to subscribe and support the site.
I like using it even when I don't need it just to spite Dr. S - b/c I know he cares so much. 😉
Originally posted by Traveling AgainYou're right, I really, really, REALLY care. 😉
Do some people use it as extra timebank? Sure, that's exactly what it is -- 30 days of extra
timebank if you feel you need it for whatever reason you might deem necessary. It's a nice
incentive for those wishing to spend a couple $$ a month to subscribe and support the site.
I like using it even when I don't need it just to spite Dr. S - b/c I know he cares so much. 😉
If it's meant to be extra 'paid-for' timebank , why is it falsely called 'Vacation'? Perhaps it should be renamed, 'bought extra time'?
I don't see it as an incentive to subscribe at all - far from it.
I would never subscribe while the system is as it is at present. So bang goes the incentive theory. 😛
ps. you can't subscribe for only a month; and it can be argued that I and other Scums support the site as much or more than you do by reading the adverts.
So stick that in yer pipe and smoke it Picard!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveDr Strangelove,
You're right, I really, really, REALLY care. 😉
If it's meant to be extra 'paid-for' timebank , why is it falsely called 'Vacation'? Perhaps it should be renamed, 'bought extra time'?
I don't see it as an incentive to subscribe at all - far from it.
I would never subscribe while the system is as it is at present. So bang goes the incen ...[text shortened]... ou do by reading the adverts.
So stick that in yer pipe and smoke it Picard!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the confusion -- but when I said "Dr. S" I was referring to User 230195.
Looking back I can see why you must have taken it so personal.
My bad.
Kind regards,
TA (oops, there I go again using vague and easily confusable initials)
Seems like I don't have much (any?) support - fair enough. To wrap things up I'll provide the background on why I started thinking about this:
- Playing a tourny against a player on vacation
- Went on vacation myself.
- Through some misunderstanding the vacation had no effect - all my games timed out as if there was no vacation. This was not about moving before the vacation ended - I think it has something to do with making sure at the beginning of vacation it is all your opponents moves.
- My opponent, despite being on vacation himself/herself and seeing I was on vacation with my timebank was still depleting, instead of realizing I had made some mistake with the site and being satisfied with the advantage of me having no time bank chose to claim the win at the earliest opportunity. Harsh, but perfectly allowable.
- I get upset and start agitating for change!
At least now I have an excuse for my ordinary rating 😉
Timeout/timebank will deplete even if you are on vacation. Being on vacation only keeps your
opponent from claiming timeout victory. If you come off vacation and have no timebank then
your opponent can claim victory immediately.
Interesting, though -- when I looked at two of your timeout losses (Game 6584843 and
Game 6584844) it shows that you still had timebank remaining. Click on the game link and
then "game info" to show remaining timebank.
I'm not sure how your opponent could have claimed victory if your timebank never depleted.
Can anyone else explain this? Maybe a bug?
edit: posted query in help forum Thread 118301