Improved Vacation System

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
You realise the suggestion is to remove timebanks altogether and instead replace it with two weeks of time during which your games will be frozen. This time can only be used in week intervals.

Of course I never said the time should only be used in week intervals. The idee was to get a certain amount of vacation time a year. For example 2 week. Now the RHPer can decide for himself how to use his vacation time, he could take a day, two days, or even a full week to suit his vacation needs.

Anyway I myself dont care what kind of vacation system we use. But I was trying to come up with a solution to the many vacation setting/timeout complaits that I have come across in the forums.

Thx for taking to time to point out your misunderstanding, have a nice day!

Originally posted by Bowmann
What's wrong with days?

I play on a site which offers 30 days per player per year. These cannot be carried over into the next year.

yes that was what I meant, (i just used a week as an example)

The idea is not a bad one - but it can't be used with the current system in effect. Take some 1 day timeout/ 0 day timebank tournaments. People expect to finish them pretty quickly. The whole point of the 1/0 is to play real fast. But if someone suddenly stops moving for about 28 days, that would ruin the whole tournament (delaying the end for at least 28 days).

Here is where I stand:
- The timeout is the time that you (normally) should use to make your move.
- The timebank is your vacation time.

The best thing for you to do - if you want to have 4 weeks to be away - is to join any tournament with a timebank of 28 days.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Of course I never said the time should only be used in week intervals. The idee was to get a certain amount of vacation time a year. For example 2 week. Now the RHPer can decide for himself how to use his vacation time, he could take a day, two days, or even a full week to suit his vacation needs.

Anyway I myself dont care what kind of vacatio ...[text shortened]... ss in the forums.

Thx for taking to time to point out your misunderstanding, have a nice day!

This bit of your first post was badly phrased and led to my assumption: "When a player used one of his vacation weeks...".

It seems to imply that you can use a week or two weeks but not two days.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Of course I never said the time should only be used in week intervals. The idee was to get a certain amount of vacation time a year. For example 2 week. Now the RHPer can decide for himself how to use his vacation time, he could take a day, two days, or even a full week to suit his vacation needs.

Anyway I myself dont care what kind of vacatio ...[text shortened]... ss in the forums.

Thx for taking to time to point out your misunderstanding, have a nice day!

What practical difference does your suggestion make? The main point seems to be to save the player from himself - Time banks can 'freeze' the game every bit as much as vacation blocks, unless you fritter them away before the vacation.

People like to complain about being timed out 'with the vacation flag up', but the site already offers timebanks of 28 days per game. That's 4 solid weeks of vacation. I don't see why people even bother with a vacation 'flag' when the timebank option's available.

Here's a scenario:

A player has 14 days vacation time that can freeze TO time from running out. The guy then enters a short TO tourney with one big group. He gets to his computer after the tourney starts and sees "Oh crap! 50 extra games! I can't play that quickly!"

He then makes some moves and puts up his vacation flag every time he needs some time to think of moves or for the weekend etc.
This means he basically gets an unfair advantage of extra time to play the tournament.


As you can see, this type of system is much easier to manipulate and abuse than the current system.

Idea scrapped.

Originally posted by schakuhr
The idea is not a bad one - but it can't be used with the current system in effect. Take some 1 day timeout/ 0 day timebank tournaments. People expect to finish them pretty quickly. The whole point of the 1/0 is to play real fast. But if someone suddenly stops moving for about 28 days, that would ruin the whole tournament (delaying the end for at least 28 ...[text shortened]... - if you want to have 4 weeks to be away - is to join any tournament with a timebank of 28 days.

As you probably already experienced. Tournaments can me stalled by just one game that last very long and can drag the tounament on for weeks and even months. So your problem exists even with the current system. Besides this is CC chess, if people really want to play very fast then blitz chess would be ideal for them!

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
What practical difference does your suggestion make? The main point seems to be to save the player from himself - Time banks can 'freeze' the game every bit as much as vacation blocks, unless you fritter them away before the vacation.

People like to complain about being timed out 'with the vacation flag up', but the site already offers timebank ...[text shortened]... on't see why people even bother with a vacation 'flag' when the timebank option's available.

This would mean that if a player would go on vacation for 2 weeks he would have to anticipate this half a year in advance since thats how long games can last on this site. And above that, games with a 28 timebank can last very long and I doubt thats what most people want. (I have one going on now for 3 month and where half way in the opening!)

Like i said: Its inflexible

Originally posted by Crowley
Here's a scenario:

A player has 14 days vacation time that can freeze TO time from running out. The guy then enters a short TO tourney with one big group. He gets to his computer after the tourney starts and sees "Oh crap! 50 extra games! I can't play that quickly!"

He then makes some moves and puts up his vacation flag every time he needs some ti ...[text shortened]... type of system is much easier to manipulate and abuse than the current system.

Idea scrapped.

This is a very bad argument, because even if a player wanted to do this he would not have a unfair advantage over the others since they also have the vacation time so they could use it in the same way...
Besides do you think that everyone spends the same amount of time on their games???

I have 20 games going on while ironman has over 100. So I have an unfair time advantage over him...

I only spend an hour a day at rhp while other spend their whole day here. They have an unfair time advatage over me...

It's very simple:


No Timebank.

30 Vacation days per player per year.

All problems solved.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
I have 20 games going on while ironman has over 100. So I have an unfair time advantage over him...

No you don't.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
This would mean that if a player would go on vacation for 2 weeks he would have to anticipate this half a year in advance since thats how long games can last on this site. And above that, games with a 28 timebank can last very long and I doubt thats what most people want. (I have one going on now for 3 month and where half way in the opening!)

Like i said: Its inflexible

There's no need for a player to 'predict' his vacation 6 months in advance. Simply arrange for games with a 14-day timebank and discipline yourself not to use that timebank.

If we go with your proposal, a player who fails to exercise such discipline loses on time. Or he must freeze all of his games at once, instead of just the one where time is low.

If a 28-day timebank is too long for you, how will you stand playing on a site that gives 2-4 weeks of holiday? Nothing stops the opponent from using 4 weeks of holiday and dragging the game on for just as long.

You sound like you prefer fast games. Why not try 1 day per move with no timebank? Then it won't take 3 months to get out of the opening. Make the much safer predicition that you won't go on vacation for the next 2 months, and it shouldn't be a problem.

I'm not sure where you're getting your conclusion: your proposal seems far less flexible than timebanks.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
This is a very bad argument, because even if a player wanted to do this he would not have a unfair advantage over the others since they also have the vacation time so they could use it in the same way...
Besides do you think that everyone spends the same amount of time on their games???

I have 20 games going on while ironman has over 100. So ...[text shortened]... day at rhp while other spend their whole day here. They have an unfair time advatage over me...

No, actually I made a very good argument - the best so far, I'd say.

The current system can't be manipulated - If you don't move, you get timed out.
If you go on vacation and get timed out, it's your own fault. The vacation flag is there for information puprposes only.

Your proposal is actually open to manipulation.
People would be able to stall games when outside pressures influence their gameplay here. I'm sure most people would use a system like this responsibly, but the bottom line is, not everyone here are honest.

If you don't have time to play here, then don't.
If you can't manage your games effectively, don't whine about it here.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
There's no need for a player to 'predict' his vacation 6 months in advance. Simply arrange for games with a 14-day timebank and discipline yourself not to use that timebank.

If we go with your proposal, a player who fails to exercise such discipline loses on time. Or he must freeze all of his games at once, instead of just the one where t ...[text shortened]... re you're getting your conclusion: your proposal seems far less flexible than timebanks.

This discipline problem eventualy gets you into trouble anyhow because if he fails to move in one of his games his timebank will decrease below his vacation needs any he will also lose on time when he's on vacation.

A better idee for the player would be to focus on the games where he's low on time instead of moving in the games where he has more then enough time.

I think a player will think twice before using all of his vacation days just to stall a game. Because this would mean that he will be without vacation days for the rest of the year and that he will not be able to move in his other games. So stalling lost games and boosting your rating like this is out of the question.

And this way I would not have a problem to wait for an opponent to move when I know that he's probably on vacation and not still moving in other games and stalling our game.

Why, when there's a perfectly simple solution to a problem, do people insist on ignoring it in favour of worse ideas and the arguments that surround them?