Originally posted by Ponderable
I think it unethical to try to go for a timeout as winning strategy.
But the tool would of course work in both directions. So even if you would set your timebomb, it's possible for your opponent to do the same. The punishment would be for the unaware, which is VERY unethical.
What about time zones?
Is it "unethical" for a person on the west coast of the U.S. to move after 9:00pm? After all, when it is 9 in San Francisco it is 12 midnight in New York (past bedtime).
Suppose the New Yorker cannot move until 5:00 pm the next day. Each night the New Yorker's time bank would be drained while the west coaster's time bank would not.
I don't see how ethics relates here anyway.
Both parties must voluntarily agree to the terms of the match. Both parties should know the rules of the game and the possibility of a time delay. If they don't know, there is nothing preventing them from learning the rules.
And the above quote points out that both parties are able to employ this strategy. Unethical would be if one player could while the other couldn't.
This is simply a question of: Economizing on scarce resources - time.
Are you saying that any player who has ever engaged in a "time scramble." is unethical?
No, a time delay feature added to conditional moves is a solution to the problems inherent in players playing from various time zones in different parts of the world.
Rather than creating injustice, it gives the New Yorker from the above example a tool to combat an existing injustice if he so perceives it.
I am sure that there is a systematic pattern/distortion such that west coast players in the U.S. tend to get the last move of the night against east coast players, all other things equal.